On 12/13/16, 12:44 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I’m in the same boat. > >I think metadata tags feel much better as well. Well, IMO, metadata is additional byte code or JS output. There is no reason for @externs or @flexjsignorecoercion to be in the output. In fact, if we used metadata for these directives, I think we'd be introducing a new class of metadata, tags that are stripped out by COMPC. AFAICT, COMPC puts all metadata in the byte code, the only filtering is done by the SWF linker. Further, for @externs, it needs to end up in the JSDoc for the JS output for Google Closure Compiler so if we use [Extern] instead, it would introduce the first time metadata ends up as a JSDoc tag and not as output. IMO, using something other than metadata as a compiler output directive would be better than overloading metadata yet again. > >If tools can help with validating metadata tags it would be even better. I think this was one of the reasons the compiler team didn't like metadata. There is no official grammar for it. How would you specify correctness? With Metadata on the Metadata? The other thing I don't like about metadata is that ASDoc annotates certain kinds of metadata like [Event], but not [Bindable]. My 2 cents, -Alex
