Ah. This is helpful.[1] Basically, we could use @define or maybe goog.DEBUG. I’m not clear on whether goog.DEBUG code is removed if goog.DEBUG is false.
[1]https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11402218/removing-debug-code-from-inside-a-function-using-closure-compiler-simple-optimis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11402218/removing-debug-code-from-inside-a-function-using-closure-compiler-simple-optimis> > On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds interesting. > > I’m not sure I understand how this would work. I am willing to explore this > with a bit of direction. > > I don’t see a debug flag listed here: > https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/wiki/Annotating-JavaScript-for-the-Closure-Compiler > > <https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/wiki/Annotating-JavaScript-for-the-Closure-Compiler> > >> On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote: >> >> I've mentioned the notion of debug-mode beads on the mailing list a couple >> of times. It would be great to see this idea explored more. >> >> By definition, now that you've debugged your code, any type-checking code >> path becomes unused in production, which is what we don't want. But >> adding code paths that go away in production, or swapping in different >> beads during development that have more code paths that check for common >> mistakes is certainly within the charter. We want to maximize developer >> productivity. >> >> I think Google Closure Compiler supports a debug flag you can use in >> COMPILE::JS blocks that gets dropped in production. If we need to mimic a >> similar flag for SWF so code can compile outside of COMPILE::JS blocks >> that might be ok. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 7/11/17, 1:07 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com >> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> I just wasted over an hour because I was initializing a BinaryData with a >>> string instead of an ArrayBuffer. >>> >>> I would like to add a typecheck to the bytes argument in the BinaryData >>> constructor to throw an error if something other than an ArrayBuffer is >>> provided. We cannot use strict typing to catch this in the compiler, >>> because the argument is different for SWF and JS. Is this a violation of >>> PAYG? It’s sort-of just in case code, but not really because it’s >>> protecting against errors. >>> >>> Thoughts? Other solutions? >>> Harbs >> >
