Just a note, we added several examples on bindSetter() to the docs for the 2.0.1 release. Stephen
________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of maikelsibbald Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:57 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: BindSetter? Binding 101 can be found here: http://labs.flexcoders.nl/?p=24 <http://labs.flexcoders.nl/?p=24> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Hindle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank You Lachlan!!! > > I can't believe this isn't documented somewhere..... > Seems like a pretty basic thing. > > Anyway, glad to know I'm not going crazy.. > > > > On 12/5/06, Lachlan Cotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think you're right Steve. I have asked myself the same question in the > > past and ended up using bindProperty... When you say *function set ():void*or function > > *get ():Something *you're really telling the method to masquerade as a > > property, so it makes sense that you can treat it as such. I have used * > > BindingUtils.bindProperty* to bind a setter method and it seems to work. > > > > Cheers, > > Lach > > > > > > On 04/12/2006, at 4:31 PM, Steve Hindle wrote: > > > > Sorry for reply to myself - but this is driving me _nuts_! I can't > > find an example of bindSetter with a 'real' accessor function with > > either yahoo or google. And the example on the 'bindUtils' page at > > adobe.com (stuck in the comments at the bottom) - doesn't bind to a > > 'function set blah'... (isn't that the _required_ to consider a > > funciton/method a 'setter' ??) It just binds to a 'normal' function. > > > > Anyway, I'm starting to think that 'bindSetter' is really a poorly > > named 'bindFunction' and that _all_ properties - var OR accessor based > > should be using bindProperty. > > > > Can someone confirm/refute this and save my sanity please! > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > >
