Starting a new thread:
We are basically using Closure Library based on Erik’s recommendation, but
at the time I still wanted to support IE8. We are now making the minimum
IE9 because we want decent SVG support and Object.defineProperties. So,
now is a good time to revisit how much of Closure Library we need. IIRC,
we are using
-goog.events: This gets us a decent event model on non-DOM objects.
-goog.provide/require: This gets us a way to order the loading of multiple
JS files which I find useful when debugging JS code during development.
-goog.inherits: This provides a way to set up inheritance and call base
class methods.
I might be forgetting something. Hopefully Erik as time to offer his
thoughts.
For older browsers I am currently recommending deploying a SWF on those
browsers since they almost all have Flash Player in them. Then we don’t
have to worry so much about polyfills.
-Alex
On 5/28/15, 8:11 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I suspect Closure is trying to be more backwards compatible. I think
>> Object. create() was added in ES5, and maybe they're aiming for ES3
>>there.
>
>Correct, using Closure we guaranty compatibility < ES5 but I wonder if we
>are good to do so, the reason was that companies were very stricks and
>allow only one browser and update rarely, my experience tells me it less
>true and most of the broswer are now autoupdated, (eg. Chrome, Firefox
>and even Opera now, ok, maybe not IE), what others have as experience now
>days ?
>
>A lot of work has been done with the Closure API already, not sure it has
>been discussed before but another option would have been to write for ES5
>browsers and have a bootstrap to load ES5 polyfills if the Application
>runs under an older browser, doing so, we could have emit the nice, out
>of the box more powerfull ES5 code and I might be wrong but also faster
>than using Closure and eventually emulate extra JS higher level functions
>like what Alex said about the C -> B -> A issue when B doesn't override a
>A accessor and we want to access it from C.
>
>But maybe also, I don't see the all picture why we didn't do that.
>
>Frédéric THOMAS
>
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:46:10 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> From: joshtynj...@gmail.com
>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>
>> I suspect Closure is trying to be more backwards compatible. I think
>> Object. create() was added in ES5, and maybe they're aiming for ES3
>>there.
>>
>> - Josh
>> On May 28, 2015 7:11 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > See this is where I am clueless, is this a difference between backward
>> > compatibility or something?
>> >
>> > Like Object.create() not all older browsers support?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Frédéric THOMAS
>><webdoubl...@hotmail.com
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Btw, this is the diff between Closure and Babel:
>> > >
>> > > goog.inherits = function (childCtor, parentCtor) {
>> > > /** @constructor */
>> > > function tempCtor() {
>> > > };
>> > > tempCtor.prototype = parentCtor.prototype;
>> > > childCtor.superClass_ = parentCtor.prototype;
>> > > childCtor.prototype = new tempCtor();
>> > > /** @override */
>> > > childCtor.prototype.constructor = childCtor;
>> > > };
>> > >
>> > > function _inherits(subClass, superClass) {
>> > > if (typeof superClass !== "function" && superClass !== null) {
>> > > throw new TypeError("Super expression must either be null
>>or a
>> > > function, not " + typeof superClass);
>> > > }
>> > > subClass.prototype = Object.create(superClass &&
>> > superClass.prototype,
>> > > {
>> > > constructor: {
>> > > value: subClass,
>> > > enumerable: false,
>> > > writable: true,
>> > > configurable: true
>> > > }
>> > > });
>> > > if (superClass) subClass.__proto__ = superClass;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > >
>> > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:36:50 -0400
>> > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > So Alex, you are saying try what Bable produces for get/set and
>>make
>> > > sure I
>> > > > make it swappable and not coupled in the emitter right?
>> > > >
>> > > > What are you doing for nested function scopes? Just creating local
>> > > > variables outside the function and referencing the current scope?
>> > > >
>> > > > Mike
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > FWIW, I did not test goog.inherit against
>>Object.getPrototypeOf. It
>> > > might
>> > > > > not work as some libraries may not use vanilla prototype
>>inheritance.
>> > > So
>> > > > > abstracting that piece will provide more flexibility.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Alex
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 5/28/15, 6:25 AM, "Michael Schmalle"
>><teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >Fred,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I said TS only because Josh said it looked nice, the came Josh
>>with
>> > > Bable
>> > > > > >and Joa said Babel.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Right now it's the whole class structure that needs a template.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Yes but given I'm more than busy, would be nice if you write
>>it
>> > > first in
>> > > > > >AS :)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I meant copy and paste, I didn't mean write it. Don't worry
>>about
>> > it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I'm still confused as usual so I guess I will wait until
>>things sink
>> > > in
>> > > > > >more. I have done this a couple times and what I learned is I
>>need a
>> > > spec
>> > > > > >first before I start writing the code.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I'm setting aside about 3 hours a day to work on this, so I
>>guess I
>> > > will
>> > > > > >start with the basic tests in expression and start to fiddle
>>form
>> > > there.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Alex, Josh any thoughts?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Mike
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > You mean if AS3 and ES6 inherit the same way correct? I
>>wouldn't
>> > > know
>> > > > > >>the
>> > > > > >> > answer to this I guess all we can do is try it right? :)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Nope, I meant Babel and TS because you said you will base
>>your
>> > > tests on
>> > > > > >> the TS ones, so, if you emit a such utility function, be sure
>> > first
>> > > we
>> > > > > >> extend classes in the same way than Babel hoping TS does the
>>same.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > I guess one of the other questions is how it
>>handles/outputs
>> > > anonymous
>> > > > > >> > function call scope, you want to do a test with that? Like
>>three
>> > > or so
>> > > > > >> > levels nested.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Yes but given I'm more than busy, would be nice if you write
>>it
>> > > first in
>> > > > > >> AS :)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Thanks
>> > > > > >> Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:51:20 -0400
>> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > >> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > > > >> webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > > > So what is different about this?
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > The only thing I can think of is that we introduce
>>utility
>> > > > > >>functions
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >> > > do
>> > > > > >> > > > the work
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > Yes, that, I guess both of the language inherit in the
>>same
>> > > way, if
>> > > > > >> yes,
>> > > > > >> > > this function is re-usable IMO
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > You mean if AS3 and ES6 inherit the same way correct? I
>>wouldn't
>> > > know
>> > > > > >>the
>> > > > > >> > answer to this I guess all we can do is try it right? :)
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > I'm going to create a branch in falcon jxemitter and start
>> > > working on
>> > > > > >>it.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > I guess one of the other questions is how it
>>handles/outputs
>> > > anonymous
>> > > > > >> > function call scope, you want to do a test with that? Like
>>three
>> > > or so
>> > > > > >> > levels nested.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Mike
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:38:16 -0400
>> > > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > >> > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > Well yes, I follow the logic. I don't understand if
>>this is
>> > a
>> > > > > >> solution,
>> > > > > >> > > why
>> > > > > >> > > > TypeScript doesn't use the same algorithm.
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > I read what the developers said and they said they had
>> > talked
>> > > > > >>about
>> > > > > >> it in
>> > > > > >> > > > length when the project first started and came to the
>> > > conclusion
>> > > > > >> there
>> > > > > >> > > > really is no solution.
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > So what is different about this?
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > The only thing I can think of is that we introduce
>>utility
>> > > > > >>functions
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >> > > do
>> > > > > >> > > > the work and they didn't want to do that, I did get
>>this
>> > from
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> > > > conversation, they stated they wanted it to be plain
>> > > javascript,
>> > > > > >>the
>> > > > > >> only
>> > > > > >> > > > helper they use is _extends function they write out for
>> > > > > >>inheritance.
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > I was thinking about TypeScript, other than the
>>language
>> > > > > >>difference,
>> > > > > >> > > there
>> > > > > >> > > > is really NO difference in our compiler and what they
>>do.
>> > > Which is
>> > > > > >> cool
>> > > > > >> > > > because all the usecases that they have will apply to
>>this
>> > > > > >>emitter.
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > Plus we have libraries and IDE support and possible
>>MXML in
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> future.
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > Mike
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > > > >> > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > I'm not a javascript guru either, but it was easy to
>> > create
>> > > ES6
>> > > > > >> classes
>> > > > > >> > > > > (left pane) and see the output (right pane), so, for
>>the
>> > > > > >>setter, it
>> > > > > >> > > creates:
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > For class A (simple):
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > get: function () {
>> > > > > >> > > > > return this._property;
>> > > > > >> > > > > },
>> > > > > >> > > > > set: function (value) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > this._property = value;
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > For class B:
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > set: function (value) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > _set(Object.getPrototypeOf(B.prototype),
>> > > "property",
>> > > > > >> value,
>> > > > > >> > > > > this);
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > Which calls:
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > var _set = function set(object, property, value,
>> > receiver) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > var desc =
>>Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object,
>> > > > > >>property);
>> > > > > >> //
>> > > > > >> > > Get
>> > > > > >> > > > > the property on B
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (desc === undefined) { // If not overrided,
>>will
>> > set
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> parent
>> > > > > >> > > > > recursively if the parent doesn't override the
>>property
>> > > either.
>> > > > > >> > > > > var parent = Object.getPrototypeOf(object);
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (parent !== null) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > set(parent, property, value, receiver);
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > } else if ("value" in desc && desc.writable) { //
>> > > didn't get
>> > > > > >> this
>> > > > > >> > > part
>> > > > > >> > > > > desc.value = value;
>> > > > > >> > > > > } else { // Else call the setterv of this Object
>> > > > > >> > > > > var setter = desc.set;
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (setter !== undefined) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > setter.call(receiver, value);
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > return value;
>> > > > > >> > > > > };
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > get: function () {
>> > > > > >> > > > > return
>> > _get(Object.getPrototypeOf(B.prototype),
>> > > > > >> "property",
>> > > > > >> > > > > this);
>> > > > > >> > > > > },
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > Which calls:
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > this for the getter, do recursive call to the
>>prototype to
>> > > check
>> > > > > >> if the
>> > > > > >> > > > > property has been overriden, if Yes, get the value.
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > var _get = function get(_x, _x2, _x3) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > var _again = true;
>> > > > > >> > > > > _function: while (_again) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > var object = _x, property = _x2, receiver =
>>_x3;
>> > > > > >> > > > > desc = parent = getter = undefined;
>> > > > > >> > > > > _again = false;
>> > > > > >> > > > > var desc =
>>Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object,
>> > > > > >> property);
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (desc === undefined) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > var parent =
>>Object.getPrototypeOf(object);
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (parent === null) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > return undefined;
>> > > > > >> > > > > } else {
>> > > > > >> > > > > _x = parent;
>> > > > > >> > > > > _x2 = property;
>> > > > > >> > > > > _x3 = receiver;
>> > > > > >> > > > > _again = true;
>> > > > > >> > > > > continue _function;
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > } else if ("value" in desc) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > return desc.value;
>> > > > > >> > > > > } else {
>> > > > > >> > > > > var getter = desc.get;
>> > > > > >> > > > > if (getter === undefined) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > return undefined;
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > return getter.call(receiver);
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > };
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > Does it do the trick ?
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:47:45 -0400
>> > > > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > >> > > > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >> > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > Interesting Fred, I am no javascript guru so I need
>> > > people to
>> > > > > >> "tell"
>> > > > > >> > > me
>> > > > > >> > > > > > what I should have output.
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > So let me get this straight, the left pane is ES6
>>and it
>> > > > > >> converted
>> > > > > >> > > it to
>> > > > > >> > > > > > ES5 in the right pane?
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > > > >> > > > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > I just tried in babel, see what it generates:
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>http://babeljs.io/repl/#?experimental=true&evaluate=true&loose=false&spec
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>=false&code=class%20A%20{%0A%09constructor%28%29%20{%0A%09%20%20this._p
>>>>ro
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>perty%20%3D%20%22init%22%3B%0A%09}%0A%09get%20property%28%29%3Astring%2
>>>>0{
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>%0A%09%09return%20this._property%3B%0A%09}%0A%09%0A%09set%20property%28
>>>>va
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>lue%3Astring%29%20{%0A%09%09this._property%20%3D%20value%3B%0A%09}%20%0
>>>>A%
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>09%0A%09showMyValue%28%29%20{%0A%09%09alert%28this._property%29%3B%0A%0
>>>>9}
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>%0A%0A}%0A%0Aclass%20B%20extends%20A%20{%0A%09get%20property%28%29%3Ast
>>>>ri
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>ng%20{%0A%09%09return%20super.property%3B%0A%09}%0A%09%0A%09set%20prope
>>>>rt
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>>>y%28value%3Astring%29%20{%0A%09%09super.property%20%3D%20value%3B%0A%09
>>>>}%
>> > > > > >>0A}
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 06:54:31 -0400
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I’m still surprised that in 2015, TS hasn’t
>>been
>> > > forced
>> > > > > >>to
>> > > > > >> > > handle
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > super.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Are people not using inheritance much in TS?
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > They tell them to use standard getValue(),
>> > setValue()
>> > > in
>> > > > > >>the
>> > > > > >> > > > > property if
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > they need inheritance overrides.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'm kind of bummed about this whole thing, I
>>stuck
>> > my
>> > > > > >>foot in
>> > > > > >> > > mouth
>> > > > > >> > > > > here,
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > since I totally forgot about this stuff. Since
>>I
>> > > really
>> > > > > >> wanted
>> > > > > >> > > to do
>> > > > > >> > > > > this
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > for Josh's POC, I am interested in what he
>>"needs"
>> > to
>> > > get
>> > > > > >>his
>> > > > > >> > > project
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > working, Josh?
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alex Harui <
>> > > > > >> aha...@adobe.com>
>> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 5/27/15, 4:16 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <
>> > > > > >> > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >Ok, This needs to be clear to me before I
>>go off
>> > > to OZ.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >In Flex JS you have;
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >Object.defineProperties(Base.prototype, /**
>> > @lends
>> > > > > >> > > > > {Base.prototype}
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > */ {
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >/** @expose */
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >text: {
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >get: /** @this {Base} */ function() {
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > return "A" +
>> > > > > >> > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superGetter(Base,
>> > > > > >> > > > > this,
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >'text');
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >},
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >set: /** @this {Base} */ function(value) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > if (value !=
>> > > > > >> > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superGetter(Base,
>> > > > > >> > > > > this,
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >'text')) {
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superSetter(Base,
>> > > > > >>this,
>> > > > > >> > > 'text',
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > "B" +
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >value);
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > }
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >}}}
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >);
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >I must use this obviously since hardly any
>> > > actionscript
>> > > > > >> could
>> > > > > >> > > be
>> > > > > >> > > > > cross
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >compiled if you can't call super accessors.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I’m still surprised that in 2015, TS hasn’t
>>been
>> > > forced
>> > > > > >>to
>> > > > > >> > > handle
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > super.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Are people not using inheritance much in TS?
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >Alex, when you have time, can you explain
>>what
>> > > this is
>> > > > > >> doing
>> > > > > >> > > so I
>> > > > > >> > > > > can
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >implement it.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I have not read the spec, but
>> > > Object.defineProperties
>> > > > > >> appears
>> > > > > >> > > to
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > associate
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a data structure with a “class”. When asked
>>to
>> > > > > >> > > interpret/execute
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Someinstance.someprop
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the JS runtime appears to check this data
>> > structure
>> > > > > >>first,
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >> > > > > call the
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get or set as needed. As I see it, there is
>>no
>> > way
>> > > to
>> > > > > >> switch
>> > > > > >> > > from
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > SomeSubClass.someProp
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > back to
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > SomeBaseClass.someProp
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > and retain the ‘this’ pointer and scope. If
>>you
>> > > had a
>> > > > > >> variable
>> > > > > >> > > > > called
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > super it would still point to the same
>>instance so
>> > > > > >> > > super.someProp
>> > > > > >> > > > > would
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > just cause the runtime to find the subclass’s
>> > > property
>> > > > > >>map.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In looking around the internet, the solutions
>> > > seemed to:
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1) get the superclass
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2) get the property map of defined properties
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3) get the getter or setter from the data
>> > structure
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) call it with the right ‘this’ pointer.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > So that’s what is in the current
>>JSFlexJSEmitter,
>> > > but it
>> > > > > >> > > assumes
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > goog.inherit is going to leave references to
>>the
>> > > base
>> > > > > >> class in
>> > > > > >> > > a
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > particular way. TS probably leaves
>>references to
>> > > base
>> > > > > >> classes
>> > > > > >> > > some
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > how so
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > some abstraction around step 1 is probably
>> > > required, but
>> > > > > >> steps
>> > > > > >> > > 2
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > through 4
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > can be the same.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It is step 4 that re-introduces “re-writing”
>>that
>> > > you
>> > > > > >>may
>> > > > > >> be
>> > > > > >> > > > > referring
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as hell. The super setter again becomes a
>> > function
>> > > > > >>call,
>> > > > > >> so
>> > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > >> > > > > AST
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > walk
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > needs to know that and walk the tree
>>differently,
>> > > > > >>saving a
>> > > > > >> > > whole
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > branch to
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be evaluated as the parameter to the function
>> > call.
>> > > > > >>IOW, a
>> > > > > >> > > binary
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > operator becomes a function call. I’ll bet
>>there
>> > > are
>> > > > > >>still
>> > > > > >> > > bugs
>> > > > > >> > > > > in the
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > current JSFlexJSEmitter.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And I think I still haven’t fixed the
>>scenario
>> > where
>> > > > > >>only a
>> > > > > >> > > getter
>> > > > > >> > > > > or
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > setter is overridden. The generated code
>>must
>> > > > > >>propagate a
>> > > > > >> > > “pass
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > through”
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for the missing getter or setter to the
>>subclass’s
>> > > data
>> > > > > >> > > structure
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > otherwise the runtime will not find the
>>setter or
>> > > getter
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >> > > think
>> > > > > >> > > > > the
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property is now read-only or write-only.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >So correct me if I am wrong but, since
>>there is
>> > > really
>> > > > > >>no
>> > > > > >> > > solution
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > without
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >an external utility to call a super
>>accessor, we
>> > > can't
>> > > > > >> really
>> > > > > >> > > say
>> > > > > >> > > > > that
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >this
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >transpiler is producing vanilla javascript.
>> > > Chicken egg
>> > > > > >> thing.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Technically, you could inline everything in
>>the
>> > > utility
>> > > > > >> > > function
>> > > > > >> > > > > and
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > still
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > called it vanilla. But it would be high-fat
>> > > vanilla.
>> > > > > >>;-)
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > A question for Josh is whether it would be
>>ok to
>> > > have a
>> > > > > >> Google
>> > > > > >> > > > > Closure
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Library dependency. These libraries exist to
>> > > > > >>encapsulate
>> > > > > >> some
>> > > > > >> > > of
>> > > > > >> > > > > these
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > object oriented patterns like finding the
>>base
>> > > class and
>> > > > > >> > > loading
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > dependency definitions in a particular
>>order. It
>> > > seems
>> > > > > >>to
>> > > > > >> be
>> > > > > >> > > > > somewhat
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > pay-as-you-go. If no inheritance, then
>>almost no
>> > > > > >>“goog”.
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Alex
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>
