Do you need me to revert?
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:04 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Looks like that change is causing compiler tests to fail, so I am going to
> try to fix up FunctionCallEmitter now.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/26/20, 9:41 AM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Harbs updated the file on royale-extras. So you should now be able to
> build royale-typedefs (use "mvn clean" or "ant wipe" first to clear out the
> old version), then build royale-asjs and the compiler should no longer
> complain about the args. Then updated FunctionCallEmitter if needed to get
> the right output.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 2/26/20, 1:47 AM, "Frost, Andrew" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks - so that looks like a good approach. I've just had a quick go
> at trying to hack this (the closure compiler jar file has a zip that contains
> this es3.js file..) but no joy so it looks like it needs to be built properly.
>
> If I was just to build that closure compiler (properly), and put the
> resulting JAR file into
> royale-asjs/js/lib/google/closure-compiler/compiler.jar, should that be
> sufficient? .. it doesn't actually seem like that jar file is being loaded at
> all when I compile, I've just renamed two folders:
> C:\Work\Royale\royale-asjs\js\lib\google
> so I no longer have "closure-compiler" or "closure-library", and I'm
> still getting it building (and failing):
>
>> c:\work\Royale\royale-asjs\js\bin\mxmlc TestArray.mxml
> Using Royale Compiler codebase: c:\Work\Royale\royale-asjs\js\bin\..\..
> Using Royale SDK: c:\Work\Royale\royale-asjs\js\bin\..\..
> MXMLJSC
>
> -sdk-js-lib=c:\Work\Royale\royale-asjs\js\bin\..\..\frameworks\js\Royale\generated-sources
> TestArray.mxml
> C:\...\TestArray.mxml(20): col: 14 Error: Implicit coercion of a value
> of type Number to an unrelated type Function.
> a.sort(Array.DESCENDING);
>
> There's no such folder as the one being passed in to sdk-js-lib, don't
> know where that comes from but no 'Royale' folder under frameworks\js..
>
> So basically - once the closure compiler is updated, what happens next
> in order to get these definitions to be recognised within Royale?!
>
>
> thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Harui <[email protected]>
> Sent: 26 February 2020 07:29
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Array sort with numeric argument
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> IIRC, there are a few places where we've already edited the JS
> definition, which is why the typedefs use custom versions of Google Closure's
> externs instead of externs directly from their repo.
>
> So I think it is just a matter of editing:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3AafESw7XFxpnySNpTYup3L7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fraw.githubusercontent.com%252Froyale-extras%252Fclosure-compiler%252Froyale%252Fexterns%252Fes3.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961762778&sdata=MFCn2D37WmSFsci8fWdh5OMJGsDs6kLeCWeJBmeLH3E%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3AafESw7XFxpnySNpTYup3L7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fraw.githubusercontent.com%252Froyale-extras%252Fclosure-compiler%252Froyale%252Fexterns%252Fes3.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961762778&sdata=MFCn2D37WmSFsci8fWdh5OMJGsDs6kLeCWeJBmeLH3E%3D&reserved=0>
> which I believe comes from
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3wUnMy1wgiKftPWEeyrXBx7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Froyale-extras%252Fclosure-compiler%252Fblob%252Fmaster%252Fexterns%252Fes3.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961762778&sdata=rwwseRP1%2Fm0nciXQ20zeemDbMOEljE%2BdXMCowR%2BBVF0%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3wUnMy1wgiKftPWEeyrXBx7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Froyale-extras%252Fclosure-compiler%252Fblob%252Fmaster%252Fexterns%252Fes3.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961762778&sdata=rwwseRP1%2Fm0nciXQ20zeemDbMOEljE%2BdXMCowR%2BBVF0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> If we change the parameter for Array.sort to the AS parameter list to
> (... args) instead of Function, then the final Array.as in royale-typedefs/js
> should allow anything there, and FunctionCallEmitter.java can pick up the
> extra cases and MethodBodySemanticChecker should not complain.
>
> I think Harbs owns that repo and can update that file.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On 2/25/20, 10:58 PM, "Frost, Andrew" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Been a little while as I've been busy with AIR stuff, but we've
> also got a Royale project ongoing and we have an issue which I'm hoping can
> be fixed by a compiler update..
>
> The issue is really simple so I'm slightly surprised we're hitting
> this:
> var a : Array = [ "one", "two", "three" ];
> a.sort(Array.DESCENDING);
> trace(a);
>
> This throws an ImplicitCoercionToUnrelatedTypeProblem
> and results in:
> Error: Implicit coercion of a value of type Number to an unrelated
> type Function.
> a.sort(Array.DESCENDING);
>
> Presumably this is because the Array is a JavaScript class and it
> expects a compare function as the only option. AS3's definition of Array
> takes an optional number after the optional function (and is also very
> forgiving if you then add in extra unused parameters after those two..), so
> valid calls would be:
> sort(Number)
> sort(Function)
> sort(Function, Number)
> sort(Function, Number, anything else ..)
> i.e. the first argument must be a function or a number; if it' a
> function then the second argument must be a number.
>
> Note that there is code to actually handle the Array.sort() method
> and to check for a numeric first argument: if this is the case then it gets
> turned into Language.sort() - see FunctionCallEmitter.java.
>
>
> So my question really is, how do we add in the extra function
> overload definitions for this?
>
> * is there a "proper" way that would ensure that the error
> isn't thrown by ensuring that the function definition is correct in the first
> place? Perhaps switching it to the AS3 definition of "function
> sort(...<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3UhYNbMDsk619zEbD94SWgU7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%252F%253Furl%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fhelp.adobe.com%25252Fen_US%25252FFlashPlatform%25252Freference%25252Factionscript%25252F3%25252Fstatements.html%252523..._%2528rest%2529_parameter%2526data%253D02%25257C01%25257Caharui%252540adobe.com%25257C8bc49bc1e3da4ce469f508d7ba893372%25257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%25257C0%25257C0%25257C637182970796966183%2526sdata%253D7t7BJmqI4yGxB9AO45fBcFqxzaQDgrlE%25252B8pXSaycXvU%25253D%2526reserved%253D0&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961772769&sdata=SBi9T%2BUsFYPlsqJM4I21hIei9tOm7kSKDrMo%2BI2rXRk%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3UhYNbMDsk619zEbD94SWgU7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%252F%253Furl%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fhelp.adobe.com%25252Fen_US%25252FFlashPlatform%25252Freference%25252Factionscript%25252F3%25252Fstatements.html%252523..._%2528rest%2529_parameter%2526data%253D02%25257C01%25257Caharui%252540adobe.com%25257C8bc49bc1e3da4ce469f508d7ba893372%25257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%25257C0%25257C0%25257C637182970796966183%2526sdata%253D7t7BJmqI4yGxB9AO45fBcFqxzaQDgrlE%25252B8pXSaycXvU%25253D%2526reserved%253D0&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961772769&sdata=SBi9T%2BUsFYPlsqJM4I21hIei9tOm7kSKDrMo%2BI2rXRk%3D&reserved=0>>
>
> args):Array<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3qLbn7V3BiNf2ARiZqYA1G7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%252F%253Furl%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fhelp.adobe.com%25252Fen_US%25252FFlashPlatform%25252Freference%25252Factionscript%25252F3%25252FArray.html%2526data%253D02%25257C01%25257Caharui%252540adobe.com%25257C8bc49bc1e3da4ce469f508d7ba893372%25257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%25257C0%25257C0%25257C637182970796966183%2526sdata%253DrhCeq4hc2LK4QpBs2lY%25252F%25252FHPQo%25252FZ0AUM3gxXSgNMK9JI%25253D%2526reserved%253D0&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961772769&sdata=chtcp1t0g4oGQlhfKhSNafRPuWo1YpJGIMs4MqrHtv8%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2F3qLbn7V3BiNf2ARiZqYA1G7Vc%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%252F%253Furl%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fhelp.adobe.com%25252Fen_US%25252FFlashPlatform%25252Freference%25252Factionscript%25252F3%25252FArray.html%2526data%253D02%25257C01%25257Caharui%252540adobe.com%25257C8bc49bc1e3da4ce469f508d7ba893372%25257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%25257C0%25257C0%25257C637182970796966183%2526sdata%253DrhCeq4hc2LK4QpBs2lY%25252F%25252FHPQo%25252FZ0AUM3gxXSgNMK9JI%25253D%2526reserved%253D0&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C910a5ed4648a489d2a8e08d7bae31f21%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637183356961772769&sdata=chtcp1t0g4oGQlhfKhSNafRPuWo1YpJGIMs4MqrHtv8%3D&reserved=0>>"
> ?
> * or, given we already have some hard-coded handling for this,
> would it be okay to add a special case into the
> MethodBodySemanticChecker.checkFunctionCall() method to handle this?
>
> I would prefer the former but am not sure whether we can just
> override a Java built-in definition, it's not quite the same as where we're
> adding missing properties such as the Array.DESCENDING stuff within the
> typedefs..
> If this can be done from there: can anyone remind me of the steps
> to take? I've had a go at adding overrides to the "missing.js" file and then
> compiled the typedefs using ant; no errors, and it had some "copying files"
> reported to the compiler and royale-asjs projects. But I still get the same
> error..
>
>
> Any thoughts appreciated!
>
> thanks
>
> Andrew
