> again from other people's coming to the Flash platform they look at > all this stuff as the typical flash hacks from old days.
> I don't know why are you so reactive to introduce private > constructors that are very clear and precise to resolve this kind of > things and don't need any trick. > Another question is what's about Abstract classes that are again very needed. > Please rethink this two things so we could get a very flexible > languaje and bring more people form other backgrounds to our beloved > platform without think that we have a platform full of hacks. I have to second all those points. Ok, now we know Adobe had long discussions internally about this issue, but I still can't see any disadvantages in permitting non-public constructors which might have led to this decision. As it seems evident from this and other similar threads the proposed workarounds for singletons are ugly and confusing for most developers. As for abstract classes: Maybe they are not part of ECMA 4 yet? I tried to google it up, but somehow I am not able to find an up-to-date specification draft. (The newest one I was able to find is from 2003). In AS 3 abstract is a reserved keyword but it's not used yet. But again: If we don't get abstract classes we need non-public constructors to fake them. In AS 2 I combine private constructors with empty (pseudo-abstract) template methods to accomplish this. AS 3 is a huge step forward, but I still miss some pieces in the core language: - Private constructors - Abstract classes and methods - Enumerations! - Class.instantiate(args:Array) method Jens www.oregano-server.org -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
