Got it. So if I were trying to hide a require() call, @flexjsignorecoercion
could be used in my code without requiring users to do anything. I think I
may be able to work with that. I'll play around with it, when I have a
moment.
- Josh
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Currently it works at the method's ASDoc, not at the class level.
>
> Here's an excerpt:
>
>
> /**
> * @flexjsignorecoercion org.apache.flex.core.WrappedHTMLElement
> * @flexjsignorecoercion HTMLBodyElement
> */
> COMPILE::JS
> override public function start():void
> {
> var body:HTMLBodyElement;
>
> // For createjs, the application is the same as the canvas
> // and it provides convenient access to the stage.
>
> element = document.createElement('canvas') as
> WrappedHTMLElement;
> element.id = 'flexjsCanvas';
> element.width = 700;
> element.height = 500;
>
> body = document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0] as
> HTMLBodyElement;
> body.appendChild(this.element);
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/2/15, 3:07 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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
> >>
> >>
>
>
