On 4/24/12 4:57 PM, "olegsivo...@gmail.com" <olegsivo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In {a.b.c} the compiler has to understand what a, b, and c resolve to,
> what [Bindable] metadata there is on each one, etc. It uses the syntax tree
> and the symbol table to do this.
>
> This is very far from reality. What compiler does is actually like this:
>
> < ... {the expression that appears in between the curly bracket} .../>
> ==>
> var anotherBinding:Function = function():* { return the expression that
> appears in between the curly bracket; }
>
> It builds the trees and does all the code analysis much-much later after
> all bindings are already generated into AS3 code. So, at the time of
> binding generation the compiler has no idea what's inside the expression.
> It only knows where it copied the expression from so that once the AS3
> lexer or later layers of the compiler find an error, it will know to
> reroute it to the place where the error happened in the original source
> code (which, quite often doesn't work). In some special cases the compiler
> can analyze the type (probably functions, classes, strings), but this is
> rare.
>
Are you saying the compiler doesn't determine what the change events for
each token in the chain? That would definitely be "very far from reality".
> I would also repeat that we are trying to solve the problem too early. ...
> MXML today is a concrete set of rigid arbitrary rules, in terms of the
> development of computer science this roughly equals to the
> early assembler macros predating C and C++, where this was already made
> more generic and configurable.
> I think we could do better than that.
Then do it.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
