Is this really any different though than those who might try to compile a Flex application from within the Flash IDE?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com>wrote: > > > > > I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no > changes > > to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, there is mention of language development > > for > > web-based virtual machines. > > > > So, while your concerns are valid, I think Apache Flex should plow ahead > in > > whatever direction it wants to go and only worry about compiler/language > > forking if it actually happens. Hopefully, Gordon and/or I will be able > to > > provide early warning. > > > > Also, I could be wrong, but I think everything proposed so far can be > > handled as a pre-processor phase (not that we'd actually do it that way) > so > > it wouldn't be impossible to provide a shim for the ASC2.0. > > > > Hey Alex, > > yea, I think you got my drift :) I also didn't mean this discussion to > result into > immediate action. I was just wondering about some of the implications. > Imagine the case where we add language features and folks try to compile > these > using ASC2.0, they would get errors naturally. I'm guessing these folks > would be > confused by this, since they are under the impression that they're coding > in > AS3, and ASC2.0 is an AS3 compiler. (Says so on the box :)) > > Like I say, I have no idea what the exact action should be, I'm only > pointing out > that this situation might arise, and I'm wondering how it should be dealt > with. > > Hence the suggestion of a name change, but that was merely one way of > handling this. > > cheers, > > Roland >
