Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

Thanks. I just (re)read it. I don’t think I quite understood it the first time around. > On Jul 13, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > See this background thread if you're > interested [1] > -Alex > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9802158cb9bf3b3737d7841ff950130d8e7a6e >

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

Sort of. That was part of the thread [1]. There was an attempt to use @expose that resulted in other problems, so we went back to @export and [] access. That was back in October 2016 and supposedly, access to static accessors shouldn't have worked after that. -Alex On 7/12/17, 11:45 PM, "Greg

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

I have a vague recollection of needing some deprecated annotation @expose for static accessors to work in the past because @export did not work. Maybe it was related? -Greg [sent from my phone] On 13/07/2017 6:24 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: Well, I looked into this and this definitely falls into th

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

Well, I looked into this and this definitely falls into the category of "how did this ever work?" The use of [] access is on purpose. When you use [Bindable], everything becomes a getter (and setter if writable) and for statics we have to use [] access to deal with GCC renaming. See this backgro

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

Not urgent right now. Once I figured out what the problem was, I removed the Bindable tag. It was not strictly necessary. In my case the public static const was not exported. Not sure why. I’m not sure that we always want to export these things either, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion that

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

How urgent is this? I'm trying to figure out why the compiler did not respond properly to bad MXML. I thought public APIs were all exported so they would survive getting renamed. In the minified JS, the code will often access the renamed variable, but a tree of objects with properties also gets

Re: [FlexJS] Bindable and consts

It appears that this is the case with any public static getter. public static function get FOO():String{return “foo”} or public static function get FOO():Foo{return _foo} I don’t see any reason why bracket notation would be needed. Is this a throwback from before we had the get__ functions? Tha