On May 10, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Ale Muñoz wrote:
On 10/05/2007, at 15:59, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
isn't actionscript an extension of javascript?
Not really.
ActionScript 1.0 was based in JavaScript and ECMAScript 3. AS 2.0
was based on ECMAScript 4. None of them comply with the full spec.
AS 3.0 is (as far as I know) fully compliant with ECMAScript 4.
But none of them *are* JavaScript.
I totally agree that some commands (mostly snippets and code
writing stuff) could be shared, but I don't see the point of making
AS use a source.js scope, really...
Anyways, it's just MHO...
Perhaps we need a source.ecmascript scope then, that the others would
inherit from....
As an example of what I am thinking: Could a snippet for creating a
basic function definition be the same for javascript and
actionscript? If so, there is no reason to duplicate such a command.
Making the scope source.js does not mean that we must inherit the
entire javascript syntax coloring. In fact we don't need to inherit
any of it. The question is whether commands and snippets could
perhaps be shared between the two languages.
Or perhaps also some minimal part of a language grammar could be
formed, called ECMAScript or something, and then be inherited by both
javascript and actionscript.
But since I don't know any of the particulars of actionscript, I will
keep out of it from now on ;). Just wanted to make it clear that
using source.js as the first part of the scope name does not
necessarily commit you as much as one would at first think of.
--
Ale Muñoz
http://sofanaranja.com
http://bomberstudios.com
Haris Skiadas
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Hanover College
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
