I just gave the latest nightly a try, and I successfully compiled some
classes that had reserved words as method names. Thanks, Alex!
- Josh
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Josh Tynjala
wrote:
> I think with FlexJS still in an evolving state, this doesn't seem like a
> huge risk. We're not pu
I think with FlexJS still in an evolving state, this doesn't seem like a
huge risk. We're not pushing these changes into the older compiler, which
has a larger audience with more legacy code. Regardless, since the reserved
words were not allowed by the compiler in the past, it seems like there is
a
OK, well that made things “easier”. I’ve pushed changes with a few tests
into the JsToAs branch. Volunteers are welcome to add more tests for the
other keywords
Now the question is: Do we gamble and merge these changes into the
develop branch for the upcoming release?
-Alex
On 9/24/15, 9:15 A
Requiring "this." before a reserved word when it's used as the name of a
member seems perfectly reasonable. It's sort of the same thing as when a
function parameter is named the same as a member variable.
function(param:String):void
{
this.param = param;
}
Sometimes, certain naming conflicts
Well, this is turning out to be trickier than I thought. I’m not a
language person, but one difficulty in getting this to work in our
compiler seems to have to do with a key difference between AS and JS.
As Josh mentioned in the links below, in JS identifierNames can be used
essentially anywhere
I’m going to see what compiler changes are needed for this.
-Alex
On 9/18/15, 4:56 PM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>Here's the section on reserved words in the ES5.1 spec:
>
>http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-7.6.1
>
>And the same section in the ES6 / ES2015 spec:
>
>http://www.ecma
Yeah, I vaguely remember something about the methods not being stored on
the prototype too. It makes sense if you consider that stuff we had to add
for event listeners to keep the right scope.
Regardless, even if it's not on the prototype, it's still accessible like
obj["identifierName"], so that'
OK, thanks for the info. A couple of notes in-line..
On 9/18/15, 4:56 PM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>
>However, the first one could be rewritten like this, where it's a
>variable,
>which must be an "identifier" instead of an "identifier name":
>
>var identifierName = function() {} //error because i
Here's the section on reserved words in the ES5.1 spec:
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-7.6.1
And the same section in the ES6 / ES2015 spec:
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-reserved-words
The rule seems to hinge on whether something is an "identifier" or
Josh,
The key question here is whether is it is not valid AS3 per the language
spec, or whether the runtime and/or the compiler won’t let you compile it.
AFAICT, what you want to do here is valid AS3 and I would expect the
runtime to run the expected ABC code, so it should be possible to get the
JavaScript allows the use of reserved words as members of
classes/interfaces, but AS3 does not.
In JS and AS3, this is not valid:
var var = 5;
However, in JS, this is valid:
var obj = {};
obj.var = 5;
Not in AS3, though.
Similarly, these are not valid AS3, but some JS types have methods with
11 matches
Mail list logo
