On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Michael A. Labriola < labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >I am starting to understand what he is pointing out as the shortcomings > of mxml as implemented, I remember noticing these when first starting out > but forgot as I focused on using what was available. > > Personally, I don't have a problem with MXML. I have a problem with what > the compiler does with MXML. > > Mike > > I believe Gordon Smith said in one of the email threads that the new compiler is no longer generating ActionScript 3 from the MXML files but converting directly to bytecode. I would imagine this is the preferred approach, no? I haven't done any compiler dev myself, yet... but I'm eager to learn. -- Omar Gonzalez s9tpep...@apache.org
