On 2/20/17, 1:13 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>
>Yes and no. There’s two issues: Runtime performance, and minified code
>size. In terms of runtime performance, initializing class values should
>not have a negative effect. They would (slightly) add to code size, but
>having to load two different models in
>
> My understanding is that Google Closure Compiler, which does the
> optimization, relies on us using foo.prototype.bar with JSDoc. For some
> reason they have not chosen to output structures. If you are certain it
> is more efficient, you should see if has been suggested on their issues
> li
On 2/16/17, 11:59 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/17, 2:34 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>>
Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
>>>
>>> I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost.
>>>(and
>>> consider
On 2/17/17, 3:22 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
wrote:
>2017-02-16 23:34 GMT+01:00 Harbs :
>
>> > Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
>>
>> I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost. (and
>> considering the three bytes of ‘=“”’ in the
2017-02-16 23:34 GMT+01:00 Harbs :
> > Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
>
> I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost. (and
> considering the three bytes of ‘=“”’ in the source code is getting petty
> IMO) Adding an extra TextModelWithEmptyStringDefaults is to
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/16/17, 2:34 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>
>>> Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
>>
>> I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost. (and
>> considering the three bytes of ‘=“”’ in the source code is gett
On 2/16/17, 2:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It is totally fine, however, to have a TextModelWithEmptyStringDefaults.
>> And have Express use it and Harbs could use it in his app. Again, what
>> percentage of the time in production will a label's text property not be
>> set to somethi
On 2/16/17, 2:34 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>> Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
>
>I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost. (and
>considering the three bytes of ‘=“”’ in the source code is getting petty
>IMO)
Pretty sure that uninitialized variables do not have
> Well, that's not PAYG (yes, I'm being picky).
I disagree. For string it certainly is PAYG. There’s no extra cost. (and
considering the three bytes of ‘=“”’ in the source code is getting petty IMO)
Adding an extra TextModelWithEmptyStringDefaults is totally unnecessary.
> Again, what
> percent
Hi,
> It is totally fine, however, to have a TextModelWithEmptyStringDefaults.
> And have Express use it and Harbs could use it in his app. Again, what
> percentage of the time in production will a label's text property not be
> set to something other than “"?
It would be a reasonably common wit
On 2/16/17, 12:00 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>I recently went this course in TextModel. By default, the text property
>was undefined which propagated to the view when it was never set. I
>changed it to 'private var _text:String = “”;' to set the default to an
>empty string.
Well, that's not PAYG (yes,
I recently went this course in TextModel. By default, the text property was
undefined which propagated to the view when it was never set. I changed it to
'private var _text:String = “”;' to set the default to an empty string.
Harbs
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Carlos Rovira
> wrote:
>
> Hi
Hi, I was thinking the same as Om. Only setting a default would to the trick
thanks
2017-02-16 19:56 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala :
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2/16/17, 10:37 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> Rovira"
> >
> > wrote:
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/17, 10:37 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >IMHO, this is not PAYG, no body wants "undefined" as a possible output.
> >In my way of thinking this could be very radical way and
On 2/16/17, 10:37 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>IMHO, this is not PAYG, no body wants "undefined" as a possible output.
>In my way of thinking this could be very radical way and take PAYG to the
>latest extreme.
>In that way almost all things are P
Hi Alex,
IMHO, this is not PAYG, no body wants "undefined" as a possible output.
In my way of thinking this could be very radical way and take PAYG to the
latest extreme.
In that way almost all things are PAYG and should not be implemented in
basic set ;) ... what do you think?
2017-02-16 2:55 GM
The Basic components don't test for unexpected inputs. It isn't PAYG. We
should try to remember to add some defensive code for common cases to
Express.
-Alex
On 2/15/17, 3:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This application when run displays “undefined” in text on the screen.
>
>
>http://n
Hi,
This application when run displays “undefined” in text on the screen.
http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
xmlns:js="library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/basic"
xmlns:local="*">
18 matches
Mail list logo
