Interesting... I didn't know about that. How would @flexjsignorecoercion be
used? In the asdocs for a class, like this?
/**
* @flexjsignorecoercion
*/
public class MyClass {}
If I'm understanding your correctly, when using this tag, the JS output
would not pass the value to Language.as()?
//as
var test = something as MyClass;
//js
var test = something; //instead of Language.as(something)
If that's how it works, I think it might be good enough for my needs.
- Josh
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/15, 2:37 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh, I see. I didn't realize that you were thinking that users would import
> >something and also manually call require(). In that case, yes, you could
> >still potentially have proper type checking.
> >
> >I like the idea of using some kind of wrapper class to hide the require()
> >call. It's kind of messy to both import and call require(), so I really
> >would prefer to hide one or the other, if possible.
>
> It's up to you or whoever writes this code. A wrapper adds a layer of
> function calls but does let you hide some ugliness.
>
> >
> >There's one thing that seems like an issue to me, though. Using an as cast
> >with require() will probably result in a null result because what is
> >returned by require("fs") doesn't actually extend an FS class (or
> >implement
> >an FS interface).
> >
> >var fs:FS = require("fs") as FS;
>
> We have this problem already. There is a special ASDoc tag called
> @flexjsignorecoercion that suppresses "as" code in the cross-compiled
> output. I've considered trying to get the compiler to automatically
> suppress the "as" code for any "as" usage that references a class in an
> external-library-path SWC. That seems like it could fail you in some
> distributed development cases where you have other code that does support
> AS in an external-library-path SWC. We could add file-level suppression
> as well, or have a config option that lists certain coercions to always
> suppress. Definitely open to ideas on this, but the fact is, the compiler
> will not let you have type-checking without using "as" so you sort of have
> to have a scheme to deal with it.
>
> -Alex
>
>
