I’m still digging into the compiler, but I had some new thoughts: What if you only got an ambiguous definition error if you had two classes neither of which is in the global package and didn’t qualify its usage? This might be easiest to implement. If we did that, then:
Scenario 1: import flash.events.Event; import org.apache.flex.events.Event; var foo:Event; // ambiguous definition error Scenario 2 (using js.swc): import goog.events.Event; var foo:Event; // always uses global package Event var bar:Event = new goog.events.Event(); // error since bar is global Event type Var baz:Event = new Event(); // no error but instantiates global Event This would mean that, for folks using js.swc, you couldn’t just import some class in a package that conflicts with a global package class and use it without fully qualifying it. We could add a config option to warn instead of error on use of global package classes. Even crazier, we could add an “unimport” directive or some compiler option, asdoc tag, or metadata that does the same and tells the compiler to never resolve to the global package. Thoughts? -Alex On 9/18/15, 12:09 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >On 9/18/15, 11:54 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Of the options that you presented, I think I like *.Event and .Event the >>most. >> >>The options with :: don't feel quite right. While I know that packages >>are >>namespaces (I remember making that discovery back in the day and >>excitedly >>blogging about it), other classes aren't usually referenced with :: in >>code. With that in mind, I like . better than :: because the . is more >>consistent. If it were somehow easier to implement, though, I could live >>with it. >> >>A simple string like global or null might conflict with some top-level >>variable in user code or in the standard library of some JS environment, >>so >>I think that style should be avoided. > >Agreed. > >> >>Of the two between *.Event and .Event, I'm not quite sure which I like >>better. Which of these seems more readable? >> >>var myVar:.Event = new .Event(); >> >>var myVar:*.Event = new *.Event(); >> >>At first, I thought I liked *.Event better, but I might be preferring >>.Event more now. > >Yeah, it might be easier grammar-wise to have something in front of the >‘.’. I’m still digging into the compiler. I will report my findings and >recommendations before committing anything. > >-Alex >
