That is, of course, one way to do it. If you want to throw out all your
type-checking and the like. Personally I like to make the compiler do as
much of my error-checking as possible, rather than having to hunt through by
hand - so prefer to be 'lame'. Particularly because I'm providing a
framework for other coders to code in.
There are hosts of articles scattered around the web as to why compile-time
type-checking is a Good Thing. And saves you time in the long run with
anything bigger than a small standalone project with one person working on
it. So I won't bother repeating all the arguments here - just have a quick
search on Google if you're interested - which, from your tone, I doubt you
are.
Just because people choose to do things in a different way from you - for a
whole host of _very good_ reasons - doesn't make them lame.
Ian
On 1/31/06, Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Making a class for globals is lame. I don't get why people do stuff like
> that. It's completely unnecessary. Here's how I make a namespace for
> globals in one line.
>
> On frame one of the root timeline:
>
> _global.APP = {};
>
> Wow. That was so hard.
>
> APP.someglobal
> APP.someotherglobal
> APP.etc
>
>
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
