Hi Harbs,
maven if passing right now (the only think that broken now is the latest
commit to typedefs, that I have to remove locally).
Thanks!
El vie., 7 sept. 2018 a las 10:55, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> I just committed a fix for this.
>
> We can discuss further, but at least the build should work…
>
> > On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Right, I'm seeing as well JewelExample failing on compile
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > El vie., 7 sept. 2018 a las 9:13, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
> >
> >> I’m saying that a param defined as {…} confuses the closure compiler
> when
> >> you have the rest redefined as an array anywhere but the first line of
> the
> >> function. It seems like a bug in the closure compiler.
> >>
> >> Changing:
> >> rest = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0);
> >> to:
> >> var rest = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0);
> >>
> >> also makes the error go away, but we do get a reassignment warning.
> >>
> >> I’m not sure what declaring a @param as {…} actually accomplishes in
> terms
> >> of type checking.
> >>
> >>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying some recent change to the compiler is now generating:
> >>> @param {...} rest
> >>>
> >>> If so, what changed caused that output? If not, why did it not fail
> >> before?
> >>>
> >>> We should be generating whatever Google says we should generate for
> rest
> >> parameters. Although I did ponder the impact of having Royale's trace
> not
> >> take extra parameters. Then folks would have to concat strings before
> >> calling trace.
> >>>
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 9/6/18, 11:58 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the problem is caused by:
> >>> * @param {...} rest
> >>>
> >>> What would happen if we remove the @param or change it to @param {*=}
> >> rest?
> >>>
> >>> Both of those work.
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> But first, I'm not sure your idea is going to work in all cases. See
> >> if you get the same problem in JewelExample.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
