Isn’t it that any FunctionDefinition that isn’t local and isn’t being used
in a call needs to be turned into a closure and cached so that same
closure gets re-used the next time?
You could be building an array of callbacks:
Var foo:Array = new Array(10);
foo[1] = someFunction;
Yeah, it can be. The more I look at this the more I remember doing it all
for variables, function/method arguments for Randori as well. I mean some
type of function binding.
I am still rusty when looking at this and just doing a high level browse
right at the moment.
So is there any other place I
Yeah, that looks like the function in use. The comment specifically
mentions being on the right side of an equals sign. Would the same code be
used when passed as a function argument, or would that need to happen
elsewhere? Maybe in the emitArgumentIdentifier() function above that?
I don't know if
HA,
I just looked at the code I wrote 2+ years ago for the AMD emitter, looks
like I already did this. :)
If you look at JSAMDEmitter.java at line 845. :) That AS3.bind() call IS
that function in javascript you just listed out.
So I guess that answers that, my comment was;
// AS3.bi
This little snippet from that wiki page looks like it should be helpful.
function bind(object, boundMethodName) {
if (object.hasOwnProperty(boundMethodName)) {
return object[boundMethodName];
}
var boundMethod = object[boundMethodName].bind(object);
Object.defineProperty(object, boundM
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the reminder. I’ll wait a few days to see if there is any
other input before trying to implement this. The main output is using
Google Closure Library which uses goog.bind and may also write a named
property for @export, so it would be good to make sure other’s can’t think
o
Hi guys,
honestly I didn't read through the whole thread, but just wanted to remind
you of what we collected about binding methods in the Apache Flex Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Simulating+AS3+language+features+in+JavaScript+using+AMD+and+ES5#SimulatingAS3languagefeatures
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Bummer.
>
> Did you try:
>
> this.addEventListener("mousedown", simpleButton_mousedownHandler);
>
> The “this.” might be creating a pattern that isn’t handled. I’m sort of
> hoping Mike will finish his mother-in-law’s bathroom and find time
Good point. We’ll have to create a mechanism that saves closures so you
don’t have to do it yourself. Maybe Mike already did this once.
-Alex
On 7/14/15, 4:55 PM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>Darn. Now I ran into the issue where removing an event listener doesn't
>work because goog.bind() returns a
Darn. Now I ran into the issue where removing an event listener doesn't
work because goog.bind() returns a different function every time that it is
called.
Looks like I will need to go with my original workaround for now. I can put
this in the constructor to make it work the way that I expect:
th
Yeah, the current state of the compiler is that we are checking for
specific AST patterns. We handle the common case here for passing a
method from an implied ‘this’ pointer which is a different tree than if
you actually type “this.”. We need a more general mechanism.
-Alex
On 7/14/15, 4:33 PM,
That worked! I thought I had tried that. I don't usually use "this." when
adding event listeners in ActionScript. I guess I was thinking too much
about how it would be converted to JavaScript or something. I must have
thought it would help the compiler. Haha!
- Josh
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:11 P
Bummer.
Did you try:
this.addEventListener("mousedown", simpleButton_mousedownHandler);
The “this.” might be creating a pattern that isn’t handled. I’m sort of
hoping Mike will finish his mother-in-law’s bathroom and find time to
start in on some way to pass context so we don’t have to one-of
Alex,
The change you made worked for the case where the function is assigned to a
variable, but it doesn't account for the function being passed as an
argument to a function.
This still doesn't work for me:
this.addEventListener("mousedown", this.simpleButton_mousedownHandler);
However, as a wo
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/15, 3:08 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >> 100% agree, but I think we have to do it soon because I keep adding in
> >> these parent walks and I think it slows things do
On 6/30/15, 3:08 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> 100% agree, but I think we have to do it soon because I keep adding in
>> these parent walks and I think it slows things down. I’d like to know
>> more about the model.
>>
>
>I can't say fo
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/29/15, 2:27 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>
> >We just really need to be careful about how we change stuff like this and
> >I
> >agree coming back to the point, accessing parents is not a good idea.
> >
> >Why? Because there are so ma
On 6/29/15, 2:27 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>Alex I know it's late(I am doing major renovations this week so I am slow)
>but;
>
>I ended up keeping a model in Randori for this type of stuff and knew I
>was
>in expressions so I could test right side and left appropriately etc.
>
>It's just th
Alex I know it's late(I am doing major renovations this week so I am slow)
but;
I ended up keeping a model in Randori for this type of stuff and knew I was
in expressions so I could test right side and left appropriately etc.
It's just there is a lot of code underneath these changes that might no
OK. I will work on it. I looked already and want to get your thoughts:
there are several places in the emitter where we stop and look up the
parent nodes to try to find the context. Is that a normal thing to do in
a compiler or should we be passing some sort of context down? In this
case, there
Oh yeah, I did remember the goog bind() for even listeners but it was
raining last night so I didn't put 2 and 2 together, blame it on the rain...
Mike
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
> Well, I was only trying to be nice but, if you know how to fix this sooner
> than la
Well, I was only trying to be nice but, if you know how to fix this sooner
than later, do it. I have this next week or two left with very little time,
more like just enough to send emails.
Mike
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/28/15, 2:21 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wro
On 6/28/15, 2:21 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Josh Tynjala
>wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is correct.
>>
>> In case it wasn't obvious, event listeners are the typical use case
>>where
>> you'd pass a reference to a member function somewhere else where a
>> reference
Here's the JIRA ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34897
- Josh
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Josh Tynjala
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that is correct.
> >
> > In case it wasn't obvious, event listeners are the typical use
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> In case it wasn't obvious, event listeners are the typical use case where
> you'd pass a reference to a member function somewhere else where a
> reference needs to be saved in a variable. AS3 made this easy by
> auto
Yes, that is correct.
In case it wasn't obvious, event listeners are the typical use case where
you'd pass a reference to a member function somewhere else where a
reference needs to be saved in a variable. AS3 made this easy by
automatically binding member functions. JavaScript usually requires so
So this only happens in javascript when you pass an object function to a
variable? SO what I am saying is that not using this.func() is what looses
the connection to the instance scope and then this becaomes window, correct?
Mike
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
> In Flash P
27 matches
Mail list logo
