Ok will try but with no guaranty :-)
Thanks,
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:25:13 +0000
>
>
>
> On 6/10/15, 6:37 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Alex,
>>
>>I've been reading the instructions before but was a bit confused the same
>>:-)
>>
>>Well, the annotated tree seems to be well constructed by the label():
>>
>>FunctionCallNode(FunctionCallID) "$obj" 0:1 loc: 1-15 abs: 1-15
>>flash.tools.debugger
>> IdentifierNode(IdentifierID) "$obj" 0:1 loc: 1-5 abs: 1-5
>>flash.tools.debugger
>> ContainerNode(ContainerID) SYNTHESIZED 0:5 loc: 6-15 abs: 6-15
>>flash.tools.debugger
>> NumericLiteralNode(LiteralIntegerID) Number 88737825 0:6 loc: 6-14
>>abs: 6-14 flash.tools.debugger
>>
>>I've got 1 subtree for the identifier and 1 for the container, none for
>>the NumericLiteralNode though, is that expected ?
>>Also, for sure I don't get all of this but to me what it describes is a
>>function, so, I wonder, shouldn't it have a return value node ?
>
> No, the return value is not in the expression, it is the result of
> evaluation the expression, so it is the output of the reducer. At least,
> that’s how I understand it.
>
>>
>>I didn't get either at what moment and from what, after the reduction,
>>the expected result of $obj(LiteralIntegerID) is supposed to come from ?
>>
>>Out of that, the exception is thrown because after the call to label(),
>>the reduce()->reduceAntecedent()->getRule() fails to find a rule to
>>apply, actually, it can't find the cost for rule as it seems to be no
>>cost function for the goalState 1, at least in the class
>>JBurgAnnotation_FunctionCallID_2_n.
>
> OK, at least you are getting a JBurgAnnotation_FunctionCallID_2_n. But I
> see now that the object reference # is few enough digits to be parsed as a
> LiteralInteger, where for me I end up with more digits so it gets parsed
> as a LiteralDouble, so I have to add a reduction for your kind of tree.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to try to fix it yourself.
>
> -Alex
>
