I do that too, but usually only when there is also a getter/setter (it's
probably bad practice, but that's what I do). I also though it could
work to use the "$" for private and protected vars, and leave public
getter/setters unprefixed, but it still wouldn't be obvious that you are
using a pub
Our coding convention is to preface all private vars with _ so you have
_myVar as a private class scopes var and myVar as a method argument or temp
var which only exists in the scope of the function.
On Feb 12, 2013 6:27 PM, "Kevin Newman" wrote:
> This might seem like a minor thing, but I'd love
This might seem like a minor thing, but I'd love to see a property
shortcut similar to coffee script, so instead of this.whateverProp, it'd
be @whateverProp. I know we can just omit "this." in AS3, but I think
it's actually harder to read that when you come back to a code base
after a few years
One more. I want to introduce annotations/attributes depending on if you speak
Java or C#.
Basically, real classes backing things like metadata as opposed to just fancy
strings we can parse.
Mike
On 2/6/13 10:51 AM, "Om" wrote:
>
> But we can still do:
>
> instance["overloadedFunctionName"](obj)
>
> where obj is of type Object.
>
> Today, the compiler does not care about this call. Would -stricterthanhell
> option catch this?
>
> Om
I think it would have to. But that example is
you could just type the param to an interface as long as your
implementation would validate the contract you'd be good to go :)
ps: btw, actionscript does have a "form" of singletons
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >still the approac
>still the approach of adding the (...param) option seems like a viable
>solution, what problems did you run into while implementing?
Know the actual names of the viable methods, its particularly a problem with
polymorphism.
function foo( value1:Object ):void;
function foo( value1:Person ):void
That wouldn't work for overloaded methods with multiple parameters,
unfortunately
On 6 February 2013 19:51, Om wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Michael A. Labriola <
> labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
>
> > >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> > -s
still the approach of adding the (...param) option seems like a viable
solution, what problems did you run into while implementing?
On 6 February 2013 19:43, Michael A. Labriola
wrote:
> >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> -stricterthanhell option that prevents
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Michael A. Labriola <
labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> -stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
> >Then I think you wouldn't need that?
>
> It's probably n
>Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
>-stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
>Then I think you wouldn't need that?
It's probably not. At the time I was trying to add features but not 'break'
anything... hence the reason I was wor
On 2/6/13 8:45 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
> Where I got stuck was also trying to regenerate a new
>
> function foo( ...args ):void;
>
> which would figure out which of the other methods to call if someone tried to
> invoke this in dynamic code that I could not check/change at compile t
>Hmm, what does "not allow" mean? I haven't figured out how to code up
>overloaded constructors, but for other methods, I was thinking we could teach
>the compiler to generate >decorated function names sort of like I remember C++
>doing back in my Windows programming days.
Many moons ago in th
On 2/6/13 2:48 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" wrote:
> I love having overloaded functions. It's nice to have the same function name
> and usage but with different data types passed. However ECMAScript does not
> allow for it.
Hmm, what does "not allow" mean? I haven't figured out how to code up
AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good for
those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just casting
the var and
On 2/5/13 8:25 AM, "Roland Zwaga" wrote:
> I was just wondering about some of the implications.
> Imagine the case where we add language features and folks try to compile
> these
> using ASC2.0, they would get errors naturally. I'm guessing these folks
> would be
> confused by this, since they
Is this really any different though than those who might try to compile a
Flex application from within the Flash IDE?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Roland Zwaga wrote:
> > >
> > I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no
> changes
> > to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, th
> >
> I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no changes
> to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, there is mention of language development
> for
> web-based virtual machines.
>
> So, while your concerns are valid, I think Apache Flex should plow ahead in
> whatever direction it wan
On 2/5/13 3:26 AM, "Roland Zwaga" wrote:
> People seem to be missing my point...
> Adobe and Apache Flex now both have a compiler, so both are in a position
> to make changes to the language. If these changes aren't in sync then
> effectively
> two separate languages are evolving. Therefore ne
Flex did.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: James Roland Cabresos [mailto:j.cabre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:25 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
Oh, what the hell I'm typing, I'm typing drunk... Let me rephrase what I
just said
ally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would complete
>> the
>> > > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
>> > > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
>> > >
>> > > Tangent
>> > >
>> > > http://
tlin.wordpress.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Langu
de world,
>>>> Flex goes beyond Flash- Adobe will market AS as a language for games and
>>>> video, not officially for Flex enterprise apps, this is confusing and to be
>>>> honest casts a shadow over Flex which we cannot do anything about...
>>>> Cons
> >
> > >> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > >> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > brought to you
gt;>>> honest casts a shadow over Flex which we cannot do anything about...
>>>> Cons :- AS is well known, a new language name needs time to be known in
>>>> the industry, will take more time to get Flex out on the job market- Yet
>>>> another language, never sits well, people
market- Yet another language, never sits well, people will
question why no existing language is used (even if it's an AS
dialect, in years they might both evolve differently)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Language features
From: rol...@stackandheap.com
To: dev@fl
> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <
> rol...@stackandheap.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> >> > probably
> >> > > > one o
t;
>> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga > > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
>> > probably
>> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
>>
robably
> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > > >
> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > > >
> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.d...@c-ware.de <
> > > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > &g
)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Language features
From: rol...@stackandheap.com
To: dev@flex.apache.org
by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be
interesting
to see
what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
They reported here on the list that
its well, people will question why no existing
>> language is used (even if it's an AS dialect, in years they might both
>> evolve differently)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: Language features
>>> From: rol...@s
never sits well, people will question
why no existing language is used (even if it's an AS dialect, in
years they might both evolve differently)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Language features
From: rol...@stackandheap.com
To: dev@flex.apache.org
by the way, with a
volve differently)
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
> Subject: Re: Language features
> From: rol...@stackandheap.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be interesting
> to see
> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0
From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Language features
> >
> > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> &g
ough the wire.
>
> Tangent
>
> http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Language features
&g
, making it inconvenient to
pass through the wire.
Tangent
http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/
-Original Message-
From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
Btw, maybe strongly
uary 2013 12:48, christofer.d...@c-ware.de <
> > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > >
> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> >
+1 for these language features!
abstract classes
generics
method overloading
reflection perhaps?
These features are the biggest selling point of the famous programming
languages today. I maybe right or wrong, but I think having these features
may help targeting HTML/JS apps.
On Mon, Feb 4, 201
>I'm not sure if I would overload functions or just accept a non-typed param
>and then check it's type as a wrapper.
Which is why people have overloading, so you don't have to do stuff like
that... accepting an * means people have no idea what is legal to pass you and
have to wait for a runti
t;
> > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > >
> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> &
; > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.
e too
>> > >
>> > > And:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@ho
Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > &g
> > And:
> >
> > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>
nd:
>
> +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
>
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Language features
>
> Nick,
Nick, +1 or even 10
-Fred
-Message d'origine-
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I
miss from Java...
-Nick
; wait for a long time for these features.
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> > -Message d'origine- From: Gordon Smith
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Language features
> >
> >
> > A
Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
-Fred
-Message d'origine-
From: Frédéric THOMAS
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
Hi Gordon,
Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
ppy a lot of people who
> wait for a long time for these features.
>
> -Fred
>
> -Message d'origine- From: Gordon Smith
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Language features
>
>
> Adding abstract cla
rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of people who
wait for a long time for these features.
-Fred
-Message d'origine-
From: Gordon Smith
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: RE: Language features
Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Fal
iler.
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
+1 Nick
May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the possibility to
have the constructo
+1 Nick
May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the possibility
to have the constructor accepting other NS than public to simulate abstract
classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but didn't dare to change it
besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone better t
52 matches
Mail list logo
