On 8/11/15, 8:15 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Also, another point I just remembered is MXML. I don’t know that
>> MouseButton would actually show up in MXML attribute values but for
>>other
>> things it might be better to use simple String constants and do extra
>> checking inside so your MXML looks like:
>>
>> <sometag someAttribute=“someValue” />
>>
>> Instead of
>>
>> <sometag someAttribute=“{SomeClass.someValue}” />
>>
>> Or
>>
>> <sometag someAttribute=“{new UtilityClass(‘someValue’))}”
>>
>> At least for now until someone figures out how to get the compiler to
>> optimize out the binding expression. I’ve always wished we could do:
>>
>> <sometag someAttribute=“SomeClass.someConst” />
>
>In libraries, for the Enum like classes, I use to add things like
>MyEnum.fromIndex(index:uint):MyEnum and
>MyEnum.fromLabel(label:String):MyEnum, so, it can be used in the same way
>than "new UtilityClass(‘someValue’))" but it belongs the same class where
>the data resides.
That’s convenient, but my main point was to reduce the number of
databinding expressions in MXML that have to be written by the developer,
and set up and run at startup.
Anyway, not a major issue for me at this time. I’m way more interested in
seeing how easy/hard it will be do convert our JS back to AS.
Thanks for working on it,
-Alex
