On 9/7/16, 1:11 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I can see advantages either way, but had assumed that longer term it may >be >advantageous to keep the AST/Typed AST more 'pure' What do you mean by "pure". That it is a direct result of the parsing? We don't have to finish this discussion now, I just want to stick in the back of my head for a while. > >Re : "It is a convenience feature: the compiler could just report an error >saying you can't use [Bindable] on Objects." >I guess that is always another option. :) >[Bindable] implicit implementation was many times overused by some Flex >developers in the past, I was probably guilty of this myself in the early >days. But it is quite handy and quick sometimes, so long as you know the >implications of its use/abuse. And if it is taken away now I am pretty >sure >sdk users will ask for it back ;) I wouldn't take away the [Bindable] on Objects feature, I was just pointing out that it really is a shortcut to writing the proper source code. If I could, I would actually have the compiler alter the source file. Otherwise, imagine how surprised you are when you see a call to super() or debug into super() and it doesn't go to Object. IMO, implementing [Bindable] by hacking the AST is sort of like having a preprocessor phase (which the former Falcon engineers were very much against). I still ponder the notion of metadata-as-macros and having [Bindable] be one of them. > >For the patch mentioned below, will you apply that to develop? Or do you >want me to do that sometime tomorrow? Now that you are a committer, you can do it yourself! -Alex
