On 11/15/15, 7:02 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>For #1, my thoughts were that you would not use Array as the base class
>> for XML and XMLList and instead populate it via defineProperties with
>> indexes. You could also populate it with defineProperties for known
>>child
>> tag names and have the getter call child() or attribute(). They
>>advantage
>> of that is that it would work in more cases where the developer has not
>> strongly typed their code. But if you do that, you would need those
>>_as3_
>> prefixes.
>
>I’m with you on the defineProperties on XMLList. I’ve already started
>working on that. I’m not sure what that has to do with the prefixes.
>
>My point is that if we’re not using simple object notation to reference
>elements, but we strictly use .child() instead, there will be no
>conflicts with function calls. As long as there’s no functions which use
>numbers, we should have no conflicts. Am I missing something?
A lot of AS code currently “just runs” even though you’ve lost the true
type of the object.
[Event(“ready”)]
public class MyClass extends EventDispatcher
{
public var myXML:XML;
}
var foo:MyClass = new MyClass();
foo.addEventListener(“ready”, readyHandler);
private function readyHandler(event:Event):void
{
trace(event.target.myXML.foo);
}
The compiler does not know that myXML is from myClass so it would simply
add a property access to foo. Now we could require that folks more
strongly type their code by adding in
trace((event.target.myXML as XMLList).foo);
But we might get complaints. The fact we normally don’t need all that
casting is what can make AS more efficient than languages that require the
casting like Java and C++.
>
>>>
>>> I’m not totally clear on exactly how we’re going to handle all the
>>> filters. I think we still need some discussion on that, but let’s get
>>>the
>>> basics straight first.
>>
>> The proposal is that you add an _as3_filter() function to XMLList. It
>> takes a function. You pass that function each node and it returns true
>>or
>> false.
>
>Right. I’m just not totally sure how the expressions get converted into
>the function calls and what the function calls will look like. E4X
>expressions can get pretty “expressive”… ;-)
So for now, the compiler handles any expression where the first
identifiers are expected to be applied to each node.
-Alex
