Re: Writable AST and Code generation for Falcon was: [Re: [jira] [Commented] (FLEX-33330) ... )

[Alex Harui]

On 12/29/12 5:19 AM, "Roland Zwaga" <rol...@stackandheap.com> wrote:


> Hm, sounds pretty sweet. If its not too much work to create a small
> experiment to proof your theory than this could be a worthy approach :)
> Generating extra classes etc shouldn't be a problem I suppose?
> What the AOP bits would do, in a nutshell, would basically be renaming an
> existing class, creating a new class with the old name of this class (and
> making it a subclass of the original) and then creating overridden methods
> in the new class.
Questions: why isn't this more like injecting an include file into a class's
source code?  Why rename the base class and add more classes to the mix?
> Come to think of, with this approach we wouldn't even need to inject
> subtrees into existing AST's... All I need to do is rename certain classes,
> I'm guessing that that wouldn't be too much of a hassle, right?
FWIW, my understanding of Falcon is that each class source file is a
compilation unit and compilation units are parsed in separate threads.
Therefore there is no actual point where all ASTs are sitting around.  I can
see a callback when the ASTs for a individual compilation unit is ready to
be reduced, but I don't know if you can or want to synchronize all AST
generation across all compilation units.

-- 
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui