Well ... I ended up in not seperating code for constructor and method.
Too much redundant Code ;-). Just pushed few commits.
Cyrill
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Cyrill,
>
> I'm (usually) not easily offended ;-) My code is written in a
> "whatever gets me there first"
> the code calls "super()", but there is no super class
The implicit superclass is Object.
- Gordon
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> Cyrill,
>
> I'm (usually) not easily offended ;-) My code is written in a
> "whatever gets me there first" style, so if
See, I'd never have thought to look that deep into the abyss of the SDK :-)
Go forth and fix!
:)
EdB
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Cyrill Zadra wrote:
> Cool ... I'll give it a try :-)
>
>> On the topic of your code: will such code ever come from Flash Builder
>> (or another IDE)? I mean:
Cool ... I'll give it a try :-)
> On the topic of your code: will such code ever come from Flash Builder
> (or another IDE)? I mean: the code calls "super()", but there is no
> super class... Not saying we shouldn't handle this properly, just want
> to make sure I understand the test case.
Yes fr
Cyrill,
I'm (usually) not easily offended ;-) My code is written in a
"whatever gets me there first" style, so if you want to break it up,
please feel free to refactor!
On the topic of your code: will such code ever come from Flash Builder
(or another IDE)? I mean: the code calls "super()", but t
HI Erik
Got following scenario:
public function TestClass()
{
super();
}
JSGoogEmiter produces following javascript ->
/**
* @constructor
*/
TestClass = function() {
var self = this;
goog.base(this);
};
.. which produces a google closure error ->
ERROR - incorrect use o
