Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML. This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot and most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a framework for Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I think sticking with Flex as the name for AS with new language features. Flex built a markup language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com>wrote: > 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 they'd be developing ASC separately > since > it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have > indicated > that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I suppose. > So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going to be > two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3? > > So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to the > language? > > Any thoughts? > > On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote: > > > I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to support > > Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember them > > saying it was coming... > > > > -Nick > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <tang...@usa.net> wrote: > > > > > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would bring > the > > > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to > > > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>. > > > > > > Additionally, 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://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-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 > > > > easy > > > > > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be > welcomed > > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that > contain > > > static members only. > > > > > > And I voting +1 for the 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 Falcon should be > > easy. > > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder but > > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth > > considering > > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a > > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and strongly-typed > > fixed > > > arrays (i.e., int[]). > > > > > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we can't > > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making any > > > modifications to the old compiler. > > > > > > - 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 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 > > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ? > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > From: Nick Collins > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Subject: Language features > > > > > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding > some > > > additional language features to our compiler? > > > > > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as > > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me > that > > at > > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler? > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > regards, > Roland > > -- > Roland Zwaga > Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA > > +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | > http://www.stackandheap.com > > http://zwaga.blogspot.com > http://www.springactionscript.org > http://www.as3commons.org >
