The typedefs will affect code completion, but I think that's "right". If you
are using playerglobal, you should get code completion for SWF Array.sort,
otherwise, you'll get the one for the browser that doesn't take the flags.
I'm not adamant that we shouldn't hack the typedefs so people can always use
SWF Array.sort, but I think there will always be people who want the
"low-level".
-Alex
On 11/8/18, 11:39 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for explaining Alex. Then it should be fine as is. You can see the
tests I added for this.
I thought the typedefs might affect code completion in editors or
something like that - like I said I have not done anything with that in the
past, so its something I need to learn.
thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:34 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I don't think I understand your goals here. I didn't know there were bugs
> in the current code, but I'm not surprised either. I was just trying to
> get some other code to work.
>
> Why do we need to change the typedefs? IMO, the typedefs should represent
> what the browser actually supports and the compiler and Language should
> deal with any ActionScript differences. The emitters are where I think
> that should happen. The RoyaleEmitters generate Royale-specific code, but
> other emitters like the GoogEmitter should allow someone to use Google
> Closure Library and write directly at the browser APIs (not the Flash
APIs).
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/8/18, 11:06 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see some discussions about messages not getting through on the list
> today, so I can't be sure the last one or this one got through.
> I pushed the commit, but please revert if if you don't want it in the
> release yet.
> thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I checked and only now realized that you made the change in
> Language.as
> > quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method
> signature
> > variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the
> support for
> > it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month!
> I hope
> > I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already
> begun as
> > well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to
> use
> > that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
> > compiler-jx for that.
> > As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless,
> code
> > in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this
> in.
> >
> > Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
> > existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
> > typedefs so far)
> >
> > ...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
> >
> > If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me
> know and
> > I will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the
> direction of
> > what I need to do for typedefs.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
