I believe you are right in Flash. Same for XMLList(). I’d be happy to write the functions. Should we do a top level toXML() or Language.XML() and Language.XMLList()?
The latter seems to fit the pattern for the rest of the language features. > On Jul 18, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Pretty sure in AS for Flash, you can write (without "new"): > > var herbs:XML = XML(someXMLListWithOneElement); > > And it will "do the right thing". > > I guess we will have to create Language.XML or add a static toXML() on XML > and have the compiler catch the top-level function call and redirect it to > that conversion function. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/package. > html#XML() > > On 7/17/17, 12:32 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just tried to see if it might work, but I get an error. Obviously >> that’s a no-no... >> >> [java] >> /Users/harbs/Documents/ApacheFlex/flex-asjs/frameworks/projects/XML/src/ma >> in/flex/XML.as(317): col: 13 A return value is not allowed in a >> constructor. >> [java] >> [java] return (xml as XMLList).toXML(); >> >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don’t think so. Write one where? How? We already have a top level XML >>> constructor. >>> >>> Wouldn’t the compiler output: >>> XML(myXML) >>> >>> as: >>> org.apache.flex.utils.Language.as(myXML,XML)? >>> >>> I’m pretty sure the only way to instantiate an XML object is to use new. >>> >>> Well, I just tried XML(myXMLList) and it does not call Language.as. It >>> keeps the code exactly as it was and invokes the XML constructor with >>> the XMLList as the parameter. >>> >>> Of course that goes totally haywire this refers to window and none of >>> the code makes any sense. I have no idea if a constructor can return >>> something else in the middle of it. (i.e. if an XMLList is fed to the >>> XML constructor, call toXML() on the XMLList and return that.) >>> >>> Harbs >>> >>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought we (you) already wrote one. If not, we won't we need one? >>>> >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> On 7/17/17, 12:01 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the pointer. >>>>> >>>>> I changed the emitter to output indexed access. It seems to work. :-) >>>>> (committed) >>>>> >>>>> I’m not sure what you mean about the top level XML function. How does >>>>> that work in Javascript? >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You can try #2 by changing ForEachEmitter.java. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the general problem, we should probably just use the XML() >>>>>> top-level >>>>>> function to "coerce" XMLList to XML. >>>>>> >>>>>> My 2 cents, >>>>>> -Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/17/17, 9:23 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a fourth option. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In terms of overhead, option #2 is probably cheapest and option #4 >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> probably most expensive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What’s the difference in terms of difficulty of changing the >>>>>>> compiler? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with the general problem. It could be that we should to a >>>>>>> function to XMLList toXML() (or something like that) where it would >>>>>>> return an XML element if it’s a single and throw an error otherwise. >>>>>>> Then >>>>>>> anytime there is an XMLList assignment to XML, the compiler could >>>>>>> add >>>>>>> .toXML(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Harbs >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMO, this points out a generic problem where in ActionScript: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> var harbs:XML = SomeXMLListWithOneElement; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> would auto-coerce the XMLList to XML by grabbing the one element. >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> have to deal with that some day. But there is probably a quick >>>>>>>> fix in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> generated code for "for each" where we just generate: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> var foo = foreachiter57_target.child(foreachiter57)[0]; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>> -Alex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/17/17, 3:40 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I discovered an issue with “for each” in the XML classes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Currently, for each does the following: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The following AS code: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> var fooList:XMLList = getFooList(); >>>>>>>>> for each(var foo:XML in fooList){ >>>>>>>>> doSomethingWithFoo(foo); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> outputs the following JS: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> var /** @type {XMLList} */ fooList = this.getFooList(); >>>>>>>>> var foreachiter57_target = fooList; >>>>>>>>> for (var foreachiter57 in foreachiter57_target.elementNames()) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> var foo = foreachiter57_target.child(foreachiter57); >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> this.doSomethingWithFoo(foo); >>>>>>>>> }} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is with the line: >>>>>>>>> var foo = foreachiter57_target.child(foreachiter57); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> foo should be of type XML. According to the ECMA spec for E4X, >>>>>>>>> XML.prototype.child and XMLList.prototype.child both ALWAYS >>>>>>>>> return an >>>>>>>>> XMLList and not an XML object. This is true even if the argument >>>>>>>>> fed >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> child is an integer. So myXMLList.child(“0”) will return an >>>>>>>>> XMLList >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> one XML element which is the first element of the original >>>>>>>>> XMLList. >>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>> need the actual XML object at the specified index without the >>>>>>>>> XMLList >>>>>>>>> wrapper. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are three ways I can see to fix this problem: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Ignore the spec and return an XML object when the argument is >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> integer. >>>>>>>>> 2. Change the compiler output to: var foo = >>>>>>>>> foreachiter57_target[foreachiter57]; Bracket access to XMLList >>>>>>>>> returns >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> XML object. >>>>>>>>> 3. Add a new function to use instead of child() (i.e. getChild()). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harbs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
