Simple and gloriously concise example (as opposed to mine!). Here, whether
the classes are native, or whether they are concrete instead of interfaces
won't change the need for a cast; all the involved objects have
commonalities but also important differences, and you want to treat them
differently.
Here's my code which uses the SharedObject to implement a User Data Manager.
This is my first ActionScript of any usefulness.
ja
http://vispo.com
package
{
// This is for managing the user's state from session to session.
// This saves their preferences and current state.
import flash.net.Shar
Juan Pablo Califano wrote:
I agree with you, but I'add for the sake of completeness that, sometimes,
relaxing the rules a bit becomes a necessary evil, like for instance, when
doing a cast.
I have another example of where a typecast can be useful. When you
really do need only BaseClass, but w
Much obliged for your deference.
We would have to agree to disagree then, since I think I agree with you in
general terms, but you seem to disagree on this alleged agreement.
You say except for one specific case, the scenario I described is a hack.
Call it whatever you like. I might even agree to
With due deference, what you just said I disagree with. The scenario you
described is not a necessary evil, it's a hack.
The only situation where that isn't a hack is if your class extends a native
type such as Sprite, but there's no ISprite. That problem is either solved by
adding the Sprite
I agree with you, but I'add for the sake of completeness that, sometimes,
relaxing the rules a bit becomes a necessary evil, like for instance, when
doing a cast.
When you do this:
// bar is typed as ISomeInterface somewhere else
var foo:SomeConcreteClass = bar as SomeConcreteClass; // or
SomeCo
Right so what you're essentially talking about is a Model, and the SharedObject
is acting as a Service.
public class Model extends EventDispatcher
{
private var so:SharedObject;
public function Model()
{
super();
init();
}
private function init():void
{
>> }
>>
>> Or this
>>
>> public function x(y:*):void
>> {
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>> From: Steven Sacks
>>> Reply-To: Flash Coders List
>>> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:38:07 -0700
>>> To: Flash Coders List
>>> Subject: R
Architecturally speaking, that's a bad idea. There's probably a strongly
typed
solution to what you're doing. Can you provide detail about what you need
to accomplish so we can help you figure out a better solution?
i expect
public function x(y:*):void
{
}
will do the job.
the public meth
ks
> > Reply-To: Flash Coders List
> > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:38:07 -0700
> > To: Flash Coders List
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] problem with strongly typed actionscript
> >
> > Architecturally speaking, that's a bad idea. There's probably a
or maybe he is just writing a custom logger and wants to be able to pass any
type of object ;)
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Merrill, Jason <
jason.merr...@bankofamerica.com> wrote:
> >> Or, you can simply turn strict mode off. I tend to agree with Steven
> Sacks, though.
> >>There's a really g
>> Or, you can simply turn strict mode off. I tend to agree with Steven
Sacks, though.
>>There's a really good reason for strong typing--mainly, it's easier to
find bugs at compile time than at
Yep. IMO, there should never be a reason to turn strict typing off, it's
like saying, "Don't tell me a
Patrick Matte wrote:
> public function x(y:Object):void
> {
>
> }
>
> Or this
>
> public function x(y:*):void
> {
>
> }
Or, you can simply turn strict mode off. I tend to agree with Steven
Sacks, though. There's a really good reason for strong typing--mainly,
it's easier to find bugs at compile t
public function x(y:Object):void
{
}
Or this
public function x(y:*):void
{
}
> From: Steven Sacks
> Reply-To: Flash Coders List
> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:38:07 -0700
> To: Flash Coders List
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] problem with strongly typed actionscript
>
Architecturally speaking, that's a bad idea. There's probably a strongly typed
solution to what you're doing. Can you provide detail about what you need to
accomplish so we can help you figure out a better solution?
On 6/7/2010 3:40 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
i want to write a method x which ta
public function x(y:Object):void
{
}
or
public function x(y:*):void
{
}
hth
jc
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> i want to write a method x which takes an argument y. i cannot anticipate
> what type the argument is going to be until run-time. it might be a number
> or a
public function x(y:* = null):void
{
}
-Original Message-
From: flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com
[mailto:flashcoders-boun...@chattyfig.figleaf.com] On Behalf Of Jim Andrews
Sent: maandag 7 juni 2010 12:41
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: [Flashcoders] problem with strongly typed
i want to write a method x which takes an argument y. i cannot anticipate
what type the argument is going to be until run-time. it might be a number
or a string or an array or who knows what?
but i am not sure how to do this in actionscript because it is strongly
typed. normally what is done i
18 matches
Mail list logo
