Sort of. That was part of the thread [1]. There was an attempt to use @expose that resulted in other problems, so we went back to @export and [] access. That was back in October 2016 and supposedly, access to static accessors shouldn't have worked after that.
-Alex On 7/12/17, 11:45 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >I have a vague recollection of needing some deprecated annotation @expose >for static accessors to work in the past because @export did not work. >Maybe it was related? > >-Greg >[sent from my phone] > >On 13/07/2017 6:24 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > >Well, I looked into this and this definitely falls into the category of >"how did this ever work?" > >The use of [] access is on purpose. When you use [Bindable], everything >becomes a getter (and setter if writable) and for statics we have to use >[] access to deal with GCC renaming. See this background thread if you're >interested [1] > >The reason it didn't work was that a FlexJS class had an exportSymbol near >the end of the file, but other methods and variables earlier in the file >with @export where being exported before the class's exportSymbol got >called. This meant that the export logic would build up a plain object of >the @exports then the exportSymbol would wipe that out by replacing that >plain object with a reference to the class. > >I moved the exportSymbol earlier in the file and things seem to work. But >I think this means that any access of static getters never worked before!? > >-Alex > >[1] >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apa >che.org%2Fthread.html%2F9802158cb9bf3b3737d7841ff950130d8e7a6e&data=02%7C0 >1%7C%7C5c4362c538094e9a25a508d4c9baba92%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 >%7C0%7C0%7C636355251226219465&sdata=wE6H%2BFj%2FlpoH75PrBm69xDRfHyBp%2BlDh >hT%2FFT13UnFE%3D&reserved=0 >10f563e1775aca3b5b@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E > > > >On 7/10/17, 9:22 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Not urgent right now. Once I figured out what the problem was, I removed >>the Bindable tag. It was not strictly necessary. >> >>In my case the public static const was not exported. Not sure why. >> >>I’m not sure that we always want to export these things either, but >>that’s a whole ‘nother discussion that I keep putting off until we’re in >>a better place. >> >>Harbs >> >>> On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>wrote: >>> >>> How urgent is this? I'm trying to figure out why the compiler did not >>> respond properly to bad MXML. >>> >>> I thought public APIs were all exported so they would survive getting >>> renamed. In the minified JS, the code will often access the renamed >>> variable, but a tree of objects with properties also gets created. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 7/10/17, 2:12 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It appears that this is the case with any public static getter. >>>> >>>> public static function get FOO():String{return “foo”} >>>> or >>>> public static function get FOO():Foo{return _foo} >>>> >>>> I don’t see any reason why bracket notation would be needed. Is this a >>>> throwback from before we had the get__ functions? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Harbs >>>> >>>>> On Jul 9, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I just discovered something: >>>>> >>>>> Foo.as: >>>>> package com.acme.foobaz.model{ >>>>> [Bindable]public class Foo{ >>>>> static public const BAZ:String = “baz”; >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> In some other class: >>>>> >>>>> if(baz == Foo.BAZ){//do something} >>>>> >>>>> compiles to: >>>>> if(baz == com.acme.foobaz.model.Foo[“BAZ”]) >>>>> >>>>> If you remove the [Bindable] meta tag on the Foo class, it compiles >>>>>to: >>>>> if(baz == com.acme.foobaz.model.Foo.BAZ) >>>>> >>>>> In the debug build, these two are functionally identical. However, >>>>>when >>>>> Google minifies the file, it has no way of knowing that Foo.BAZ is >>>>>used. >>>>> This results in calling (assuming com.acme.foobaz.model.Foo becomes >>>>>k) >>>>> k.BAZ even though k.BAZ was optimized away and k.BAZ is undefined. >>>>> >>>>> Why does [Bindable] on a class cause the bracket notation to be used? >>>>> >>>>> Harbs >>>> >>> >>
