Uneducated question here. If we can't read what is spit out, how can make tests to make sure that the gestalt is correct? If we can read what is spit out, why not read it and remain stateless?
I'm assuming that as time goes on, we'll want to read the output to optimize it on some level. brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>wrote: > I knew I looked at what you did before. > > I see no problem with that Erik, if you test visitAcessor() and it does > what you want and in the context of the method which is to test the > production of a unit where the unit here is a field and > Object.defineProperty() so that is good. > > Does my thinking about state make sense to you with this example? We are > trying to avoid crossed wires. > > > Mike > > Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: > > Hi, >> >> I'm aware we're trying to keep a state-less thing going with FJx, but >> I ran into an issue that I'm not sure how to solve without adding some >> kind of storage (private variable) on the 'goog' emitter. >> >> The thing is that a property has/can have both a getter and a setter >> accessor. For a full 'goog' implementation, in addition to emitting >> 'Object.defineProperty' for each, we also want to add a property >> declaration on the prototype, to set the type. We want to add this >> declaration only once, so my solution is to 'remember' if I already >> added it in a private variable, since I know of no other way of >> checking if I have already written something to the output. >> >> Am I doing it right? >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> -- >> Ix Multimedia Software >> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> 3521 VB Utrecht >> >> T. 06-51952295 >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> >> > -- > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC > http://www.teotigraphix.com > http://blog.teotigraphix.com > >
