Small test cases would be helpful in determining solutions. Thanks, -Alex
On 9/7/17, 3:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >It only worked up to a point. I ran into many cases where the old >compiler blew up on these issues. I spent about a month with Alex on >these issues. They were very difficult to resolve. > >Let’s see what Alex thinks of my latest suggestion on resolving this >problem. > >Harbs > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:05 PM, lizhi <s...@qq.com> wrote: >> >> hi， >> Whether it's bug or not. But the flashplayer based AS3 language supports >> this writing. And the old version of flexjs also supports this writing, >> proving that it can be successfully compiled into JS code. Besides, we >>use >> flexjs for a great reason because there are many old AS3 libraries, >>some of >> which contain this type of writing, such as the GUI library I'm >>porting. If >> you can't go to the old AS3 library, then flexjs will lose a lot of >>users. >> And now the compiler has this error, did not prompt where this error, so >> once there is an error, it is difficult to troubleshoot. Then again, the >> best way for us to be an flexjs compiler is to implement the AS3 syntax >> rules of flashplayer and flashair as much as possible, not to say that a >> particular writing is bad and that it does not support this writing. >>And I >> don't think there's any problem with the wording of static >> >> >> >> ----- >> spriteflexjs.com >> -- >> Sent from: >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fl >>ex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8f5ffbc6c2cb458 >>55ec008d4f5d970d9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364037616 >>37199839&sdata=SEZvyVkGZ5qpRFqMzDJ4%2FNxYa4a9GETerkdoEvlb4Vs%3D&reserved= >>0 >
