> Geoffrey, > This is a common misconception about return types. In the Flex > docs, the type specified is the lowest subclass supported for the > returned data. If the return type is Object, this can include Array, > Boolean, String, Number, components, and most custom classes.
> But alas that is not the issue here, Houston we have a bug! Hm, I think the misconception is on your side. Of course the return type Object allows almost anything at *runtime*, but the *compile* time type is just Object and you have to cast to any other concrete type. This is the case in ActionScript 2/3 and any other strongly typed language I know (e.g. Java). In fact this is the reason why Java 5 introduced Generics: You do not have to cast any more if you take something out of a collection. But in AS we don't have Generics (yet) so we have to cast. Without the need to cast in such a case the whole type system would not make much sense. Of course you have to differentiate between upcasting and downcasting! Upcasting does not need an explicit cast: var vo:ValueObject = new ValueObject(); var o:Object = vo; // upcast, casting is implicit! But when downcasting you have to do an explicit cast: var o:Object = dg.selectedItem; var vo:ValueObject = ValueObject(o); // downcast, need to cast! Don't know the issues related to the valueOf method. But... its return type is Object too, so I think it's the other way around: The bug is that the compiler does not complain when you use valueOf.. Jens -- 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/
