Hm... For me this d3 ordinal thing like implementing the () operator in c++. Is it a function with members and methods or is it an object with the ability to be called as a function?
Anyway if you and Roberto say it is not a bug then it's not a bug. When I revisit my D3 bindings I will explore your proposals - but AFAIK there is no easy solution that resembles the original javascript API. Currently I prefer to copy paste among the inheritance pyramid (there are 2 or 3 subtypes) and have a create() method instead of ordinal() that generates the object. If there is no objection I will post another stumbling block I encountered in my jsinterop journey. On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:24:40 PM UTC+2, Vassilis Virvilis wrote: >> >> Ηι, >> >> thanks for answering >> >> d3.ordinal does not exist as you said. However d3.scale.ordinal exists >> and that part works great. >> > > But it is not a type, so you cannot use 'instanceof' on it. > > >> in d3 ordinal is both a function ordinal() which returns an ordinal >> instance and an object with more methods such as range() which is the crux >> of my issue. >> >> The problem there is that >> >> - public native <I, O> O range(I[] values); *// this doesn't >> work* >> - // public native <I> Ordinal range(I[] values); *// this works* >> >> I would like to use the first definition because it allows reusing some >> code between different scales. Otherwise I have to copy-paste the range() >> method multiple times instead of put it in a base class. >> > > In Java, generics are more or less syntactic sugar for using the erased > type and casting values. So when using the first one, GWT will, when used > with O==Ordinal, generate a cast from Object to Ordinal, which IIUC is > what's causing the error, because your JsType is not a type that can be > checked (a cast is translated in JS to a type-check using 'instanceof'). > > >> The problem is on the exceptions generated by the attempting casting. >> >> As you said this may not be a bug but not for the reason you mentioned. >> >> So the question remains: Should I report it as an issue? >> > > I would say no. Your @JsType is wrong. You should either use an interface > with @JsType(isNative=true, name="?", namespace=JsPackage.GLOBAL), or if > you want to use fields use a class with @JsType(isNative=true, > name="Object", namespace=JsPackage.GLOBAL) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/6206fb29-d3c1- > 48de-ab04-0610cbb3c2bd%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/6206fb29-d3c1-48de-ab04-0610cbb3c2bd%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Vassilis Virvilis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAKbOjExtFzAEo2fL66Z3gDrfzNA%3DnF90moVCvGg2BUjjDVqJfg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
