Hi Josh, Functionality first, performance second is always the mantra (or at least I think it is). Thanks again for this, and I hope that whatever you're facing resolves or eases as quickly as you could hope for. Whatever it is, it certainly comes first.
Only because you asked for feedback: The infer types default makes sense to me too. I can't remember if we have GCC supporting ES6 or not, I had the idea that we were targeting ES5.The bind method on Function.prototype would probably be useful here if we can't output ES6 directly. fyi I hope to be more 'available' from late September, perhaps I can either help out, or work on some other Royale things after that. -Greg On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:43 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > There is no warning for omitting the return type when the braces are > omitted. The compiler infers the return type from the body expression. I > thought about requiring the infer-types compiler option for that, but > considering that it is all new syntax, I feel like maybe it just makes > sense to allow it. > > Yes, the generated JS currently matches how I emulated arrow functions in > SWF. I’d like to use real JS arrow functions in the future, but I figured > that I could start with this and improve it later. I’ve been dealing with a > family emergency, and I plan to take some personal time, so I wanted to > commit this as a good enough starting point to gather feedback. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC > https://bowlerhat.dev/ > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:37 AM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nice work, Josh! > > > > I just tried with > > var test:Function = () => true; > > > > Is that supposed to be ():Boolean => true ? > > > > fyi if it is, I did not see a warning (I don't think) > > > > I assume you are simply outputting the same 'conversion' for swf in the > js > > output at the moment ? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:37 PM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Awesome! :-) > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2025, at 1:48 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > I just wanted to highlight a new AS3 language feature that I have > > > recently > > > > implemented in the Royale compiler: arrow function expressions! > > > > > > > > If you're not familiar, these were added to JavaScript a while back. > > Here > > > > are the MDN docs for the JS version: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/Arrow_functions > > > > > > > > Basically, they have two main advantages. > > > > > > > > 1. They have shorter syntax. > > > > 2. They can use the `this` variable from the enclosing function's > > scope. > > > > > > > > Here's a simple example: > > > > > > > > var func:Function = (name:String) => "Hello, " + name; > > > > func("Royale"); > > > > > > > > - No function keyword (uses => instead) > > > > - Optional return type (it may be inferred from the return value) > > > > - Optional braces around the function body, if it contains a single > > > > expression > > > > - If braces are omitted, no need for a `return` keyword > > > > > > > > You could rewrite the same arrow function like this, without > everything > > > > omitted: > > > > > > > > var func:Function = (name:String):String => { > > > > return "Hello, " + name; > > > > } > > > > > > > > Technically, this is valid too: > > > > > > > > var func:Function = name => "Hello, " + name; > > > > > > > > However, it will report a warning because the name parameter type is > > > > missing, so that's not recommended. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Josh Tynjala > > > > Bowler Hat LLC > > > > https://bowlerhat.dev/ > > > > > > > > >
