I’m not trying to hide anything. It’s just sometimes easier to create these
types in the class. However, doing that does not make them available to
subclasses.
Considering that defining types is so important for the goog compiler, making
it easier to define types would be nice.
In this case, I just made public classes for the types.
Sort of related:
Does it make any sense to have dynamic classes not generate reflection data by
default? That might make it easier to generate lighter-weight value object
types.
Harbs
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Just wondering, what are you trying to "hide"?
>
> You could make an interface public but not the class that implements the
> interface. You would expose the class via some API if you need to.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 12/18/17, 11:38 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can’t think of a way. Hence my question… ;-)
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure. Is this sort of thing legal in pure AS3?
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 12/18/17, 7:55 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a class which has an internal class for an Object definition:
>>>>
>>>> class DrawRecord{
>>>> public var rect:Rectangle;
>>>> public var color:uint;
>>>> public var alpha:Number;
>>>> public var columnRect:Rectangle;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This class has a subclass which sets one of the properties in this
>>>> value
>>>> object (i.e. columnRect). Internal classes are only available in the
>>>> same
>>>> file. Is there any trick to make the class definition available to the
>>>> subclass without making the type definition a full blown public class
>>>> in
>>>> its own file?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Harbs
>>>
>>
>
