yeah i noticed as well, it makes it implement IEventDispatcher in the
backgound via the first pass compiler
On Nov 15, 2007 5:58 AM, Stephen Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> What is going on that makes this legal code:
>
> [Bindbale]
> class MyClass {
> function something() {
> dispatchEvent(new Event('someevent'));
> }
> }
>
> What is curious is that I can call dispatchEvent since the class doesn't
> define such a method, nor does it extend EventDispatcher. Remove the
> [Bindable] tag and the above will not compile. So, the [Bindable] tag
> seems
> to be causing the class to implicitly implement IEventDispatcher somehow.
> This is not normally a problem, but if you need to refer to this class in
> a
> Flash component kit component then Flash will complain as it doesn't know
> that anything with a [Bindable] tag can dispatch events. So, what exactly
> is going on behind the scenes? From my exploration of the AS generated by
> mxmlc I thought that the compiler would not do anything to classes such as
>
> the one above, and instead set up a series of changewatchers to implement
> bindings to objects of this class, this being the case then I would not
> expect classes that don't explicitely extend EventDispatcher or implement
> IEventDispatcher to be capable of being treated as if they do. I
> appreciate
> that [Bindable] classes, and those with [Bindable] properties need to be
> able to dispatch events, but am curious about the exact means by which
> this
> is achieved.
>
> Any insight much appreciated!
> Stephen
>
>
--
j:pn
\\no comment
