Oups, I meant -optimize=true, that the optimization process that erase the annotations gather all the actions in one IIRC.
Frédéric THOMAS ---------------------------------------- > From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: [Falcon] More NS for ctor ? (was: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration) > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:01:48 +0100 > > IIRC, I've been able to make the compiler to not complain when having private > and protected NS to the constructor, the player doesn't expect anything > except public, so, the trick was to add an internal annotation on the class > (not possible on the constructor itself) to keep that information and replace > the constructor wit public to make FP happy, later in the compilation > process, when examining the annotation, add the information to the class > definition and later again report a problem if the code try to instantiate a > protected / private class, I guess, it could work even for custom NS. > > Note: the annotation is lost when compiling with -debug=false or > -optimize=false > > Another option could have been to include in the generated constructor the > byte code around the user one that I use in AS when I create an abstract or a > private class as shown here > https://gist.github.com/doublefx/b1173808e34ad35d8d40 > > Thoughts ? > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 12:23:16 -0400 >> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration >> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yep, would like to see private / protected constructors, method >>> overloading, generics and lambda in falcon to overwhelm any competitor :-) >>> >> >> >> I wish I got paid doing this because I would take 3 months of my life and >> learn the low level of compiler theory and engineering and I could >> implement it in the compiler. >> >> That is what sucks, the ActionScript language COULD compete with these >> languages out today as a progressive language, but there is no money behind >> it to drive innovation. >> >> >>> >>> I've been trying time ago for private / protected constructors using class >>> annotation in the compiler, I wasn't far but lost all my job with my >>> computer :-( and wasn't easy for me as I'm not a compiler guy. >>> >>> I guess the same principle could use for method overloading, not sure for >>> generics but why not as at the end, it is only compile time checking and >>> the info could be erase at runtime as done in Java. >>> >> >> Can you show me examples of what you were doing? Start a new thread if you >> do. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Frédéric THOMAS >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:40:22 -0400 >>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration >>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Btw, what happen when you compile JS.swc stuffs in AS ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, the only reason for the JS.swc is code completion and compile API. >>>> You know, just tricks the compiler into thinking JS DOM calls are >>>> actionscript and does correct type checking. >>>> >>>> Basically think of the PLAINJS output type as a little "TypeScript" >>>> compiler. Justa quick AST generation and AST walk to emit JS code, done. >>> :) >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frédéric THOMAS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>> From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com >>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ >>> Integration >>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:31:32 +0100 >>>>>> >>>>>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is >>> JS, >>>>> the >>>>>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based >>> on >>>>>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm fine with that approach as the FLEXJS_DUAL output type re-invokes >>>>> the compiler after the swf compilation to compile the JS with FLEXJS >>> output >>>>> type. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:27:03 -0400 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ >>> Integration >>>>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is >>> JS, >>>>> the >>>>>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based >>> on >>>>>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Michael Schmalle < >>>>>>> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >>>>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I don't want to miss that either, big up for you too Mike !! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not kidding myself, there is still a huge amount of work to be >>>>> done to >>>>>>>> get it to work correctly based on externals that are more complicated >>>>> then >>>>>>>> the ones I did right now. I think I managed to get packages(js >>>>> namespaces) >>>>>>>> working but I really haven't tested them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On top of this, the FlexJS emitter needs a bunch of configuration >>> added >>>>>>>> through it's emitter stage (to not produce GCC comments, inherits >>> etc). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What will probably happen is there will just be a JS output type that >>>>>>>> subclasses the FlexJS emitter and turns everything off, then it's >>> not a >>>>>>>> rats nest of config arguments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ >>>>> Integration >>>>>>>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Great job Fred, so this means we just need the FlexJS SDK and it >>> will >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> right? Do we still have to setup a library for code completion >>> etc.? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >>>>>>>>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I understand what you did but not sure I could reproduce, I wasn't >>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> far in my experiment but I still miss the complete round trip >>> logic >>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> jBurg, I guess I would need to spend more time on it to get it >>>>> better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Whatever, that's awesome, we can now compile and debug without any >>>>>>>>>>> dependencies on the Flex SDK in IntelliJ :-) big up !! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will commit soon what I've done too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:19:47 +0000 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I think I got it. Try my latest commit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/15, 12:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I will work on it. Thanks for trying, it is rather strange >>>>> stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/12/15, 9:16 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Alex, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, I've been trying to get why I always get a cost "not >>>>> feasible" >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your function but I'm failing to understand the logic of jBurg, >>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>seing your solution will unligthen me but at the moment I'm >>>>> totally >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the dark. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
