You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com> on 2013/02/05 12:28:07 UTC
Naming AS3 future versions - was Re: Language features
Right,
I don't have a bunch of time for all this water cooler talk but my
head lives in the NOW. You know how far off generics are?
Do we have any other compiler developers around to start pushing
Falcon forward?
If the answer is NO right now, than AS3 is all you have to worry about.
I also understand there needs to be a differentiation between feature
sets, but lets talk about that next year when it happens...
Mike
Quoting Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>:
> I assume we'll be calling it Apache ActionScript when Adobe feel
> that HTML5 is ready to front their gaming push.
>
>
> On 05/02/2013 10:37, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>> There is a simple answer to this.
>>
>> Keep AS3, it's a language name, not a product. Flex is a product,
>> if you want to do something, change the image of Flex. We have a
>> new name, Falcon AS3.
>>
>> Evolution just happens. My work with the compiler is meant to
>> empower the next generation of devs that want a tried and true OOP
>> language to work with JavaScript and HTML5.
>>
>> I already have some prototypes of pretty amazing things on this
>> cross compiling front. There is no majic or marketing that creates
>> new things, people that go to school for advertising are different
>> from those that invent the things the advertisers will market.
>>
>> You want to know why there is so much crap technology right now?
>> It's because there are more advertisers then engineers in the
>> steering the ship.
>>
>> Rant over, my work here has nothing to do with Flex, it has to do
>> with creating a stable future for a language that has more than 10
>> years proved itself as agile and understandable.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Frank Pepermans <fr...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Pros :- Actionscript and Flash are the same thing to the outside
>>> world, Flex goes beyond Flash- Adobe will market AS as a language
>>> for games and video, not officially for Flex enterprise apps, this
>>> is confusing and to be honest casts a shadow over Flex which we
>>> cannot do anything about...
>>> Cons :- AS is well known, a new language name needs time to be
>>> known in the industry, will take more time to get Flex out on the
>>> job market- Yet another language, never sits well, people will
>>> question why no existing language is used (even if it's an AS
>>> dialect, in years they might both evolve differently)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
>>>> Subject: Re: Language features
>>>> From: roland@stackandheap.com
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be interesting
>>>> to see
>>>> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
>>>> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately
>>>> since
>>>> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have
>>>> indicated
>>>> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I suppose.
>>>> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is
>>>> going to be
>>>> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3?
>>>>
>>>> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to the
>>>> language?
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to support
>>>>> Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember them
>>>>> saying it was coming...
>>>>>
>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <ta...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support
>>>>> would bring the
>>>>> > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to
>>>>> > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would
>>>>> complete the
>>>>> > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
>>>>> > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Tangent
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi Gordon,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
>>>>> > > easy
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would
>>>>> be welcomed
>>>>> > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes
>>>>> that contain
>>>>> > static members only.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of
>>>>> people who
>>>>> > wait for a long time for these features.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> > From: Gordon Smith
>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> > Subject: RE: Language features
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
>>>>> easy.
>>>>> > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder but
>>>>> > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth
>>>>> considering
>>>>> > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a
>>>>> > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and strongly-typed
>>>>> fixed
>>>>> > arrays (i.e., int[]).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we can't
>>>>> > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making any
>>>>> > modifications to the old compiler.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > - Gordon
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +1 Nick
>>>>> >
>>>>> > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the
>>>>> > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public to
>>>>> > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone
>>>>> better
>>>>> > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> > From: Nick Collins
>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> > Subject: Language features
>>>>> >
>>>>> > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at
>>>>> adding some
>>>>> > additional language features to our compiler?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as
>>>>> > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems
>>>>> to me that
>>>>> at
>>>>> > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Nick
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> regards,
>>>> Roland
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Roland Zwaga
>>>> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>>>>
>>>> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
>>>> http://www.stackandheap.com
>>>>
>>>> http://zwaga.blogspot.com
>>>> http://www.springactionscript.org
>>>> http://www.as3commons.org
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
Re: Naming AS3 future versions - was Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
My apologies. It's just such an interesting topic, real or imagined.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
> Right,
>
> I don't have a bunch of time for all this water cooler talk but my head
> lives in the NOW. You know how far off generics are?
>
> Do we have any other compiler developers around to start pushing Falcon
> forward?
>
> If the answer is NO right now, than AS3 is all you have to worry about.
>
> I also understand there needs to be a differentiation between feature
> sets, but lets talk about that next year when it happens...
>
> Mike
>
>
> Quoting Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>**:
>
> I assume we'll be calling it Apache ActionScript when Adobe feel that
>> HTML5 is ready to front their gaming push.
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2013 10:37, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>>
>>> There is a simple answer to this.
>>>
>>> Keep AS3, it's a language name, not a product. Flex is a product, if you
>>> want to do something, change the image of Flex. We have a new name, Falcon
>>> AS3.
>>>
>>> Evolution just happens. My work with the compiler is meant to empower
>>> the next generation of devs that want a tried and true OOP language to work
>>> with JavaScript and HTML5.
>>>
>>> I already have some prototypes of pretty amazing things on this cross
>>> compiling front. There is no majic or marketing that creates new things,
>>> people that go to school for advertising are different from those that
>>> invent the things the advertisers will market.
>>>
>>> You want to know why there is so much crap technology right now? It's
>>> because there are more advertisers then engineers in the steering the ship.
>>>
>>> Rant over, my work here has nothing to do with Flex, it has to do with
>>> creating a stable future for a language that has more than 10 years proved
>>> itself as agile and understandable.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Frank Pepermans <fr...@hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pros :- Actionscript and Flash are the same thing to the outside world,
>>>> Flex goes beyond Flash- Adobe will market AS as a language for games and
>>>> video, not officially for Flex enterprise apps, this is confusing and to be
>>>> honest casts a shadow over Flex which we cannot do anything about...
>>>> Cons :- AS is well known, a new language name needs time to be known in
>>>> the industry, will take more time to get Flex out on the job market- Yet
>>>> another language, never sits well, people will question why no existing
>>>> language is used (even if it's an AS dialect, in years they might both
>>>> evolve differently)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
>>>>> Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>> From: roland@stackandheap.com
>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be
>>>>> interesting
>>>>> to see
>>>>> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
>>>>> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately
>>>>> since
>>>>> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have
>>>>> indicated
>>>>> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I
>>>>> suppose.
>>>>> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going
>>>>> to be
>>>>> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to
>>>>> the
>>>>> language?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> saying it was coming...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <ta...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would
>>>>>> bring the
>>>>>> > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to
>>>>>> > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would
>>>>>> complete the
>>>>>> > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
>>>>>> > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Tangent
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > http://tangentlin.wordpress.**com/<http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<we...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi Gordon,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> > > easy
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be
>>>>>> welcomed
>>>>>> > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that
>>>>>> contain
>>>>>> > static members only.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of
>>>>>> people who
>>>>>> > wait for a long time for these features.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Gordon Smith
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: RE: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
>>>>>> easy.
>>>>>> > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth
>>>>>> considering
>>>>>> > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a
>>>>>> > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and
>>>>>> strongly-typed
>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>> > arrays (i.e., int[]).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> > modifications to the old compiler.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > - Gordon
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<we...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +1 Nick
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the
>>>>>> > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Nick Collins
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> > additional language features to our compiler?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as
>>>>>> > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Nick
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Roland
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Roland Zwaga
>>>>> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>>>>>
>>>>> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
>>>>> http://www.stackandheap.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://zwaga.blogspot.com
>>>>> http://www.springactionscript.**org<http://www.springactionscript.org>
>>>>> http://www.as3commons.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
>
Re: Naming AS3 future versions - was Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
I never claimed there should be a name change right now.
I was asking a question about what happens to AS3 when both Apache and
Adobe make
different changes to it. It was more of a discussion point then a direct
action point :)
On 5 February 2013 12:28, Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
> Right,
>
> I don't have a bunch of time for all this water cooler talk but my head
> lives in the NOW. You know how far off generics are?
>
> Do we have any other compiler developers around to start pushing Falcon
> forward?
>
> If the answer is NO right now, than AS3 is all you have to worry about.
>
> I also understand there needs to be a differentiation between feature
> sets, but lets talk about that next year when it happens...
>
> Mike
>
>
> Quoting Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>**:
>
> I assume we'll be calling it Apache ActionScript when Adobe feel that
>> HTML5 is ready to front their gaming push.
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2013 10:37, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>>
>>> There is a simple answer to this.
>>>
>>> Keep AS3, it's a language name, not a product. Flex is a product, if you
>>> want to do something, change the image of Flex. We have a new name, Falcon
>>> AS3.
>>>
>>> Evolution just happens. My work with the compiler is meant to empower
>>> the next generation of devs that want a tried and true OOP language to work
>>> with JavaScript and HTML5.
>>>
>>> I already have some prototypes of pretty amazing things on this cross
>>> compiling front. There is no majic or marketing that creates new things,
>>> people that go to school for advertising are different from those that
>>> invent the things the advertisers will market.
>>>
>>> You want to know why there is so much crap technology right now? It's
>>> because there are more advertisers then engineers in the steering the ship.
>>>
>>> Rant over, my work here has nothing to do with Flex, it has to do with
>>> creating a stable future for a language that has more than 10 years proved
>>> itself as agile and understandable.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Frank Pepermans <fr...@hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pros :- Actionscript and Flash are the same thing to the outside world,
>>>> Flex goes beyond Flash- Adobe will market AS as a language for games and
>>>> video, not officially for Flex enterprise apps, this is confusing and to be
>>>> honest casts a shadow over Flex which we cannot do anything about...
>>>> Cons :- AS is well known, a new language name needs time to be known in
>>>> the industry, will take more time to get Flex out on the job market- Yet
>>>> another language, never sits well, people will question why no existing
>>>> language is used (even if it's an AS dialect, in years they might both
>>>> evolve differently)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
>>>>> Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>> From: roland@stackandheap.com
>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be
>>>>> interesting
>>>>> to see
>>>>> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
>>>>> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately
>>>>> since
>>>>> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have
>>>>> indicated
>>>>> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I
>>>>> suppose.
>>>>> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going
>>>>> to be
>>>>> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to
>>>>> the
>>>>> language?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> saying it was coming...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <ta...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would
>>>>>> bring the
>>>>>> > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to
>>>>>> > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would
>>>>>> complete the
>>>>>> > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
>>>>>> > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Tangent
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > http://tangentlin.wordpress.**com/<http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<we...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi Gordon,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> > > easy
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be
>>>>>> welcomed
>>>>>> > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that
>>>>>> contain
>>>>>> > static members only.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of
>>>>>> people who
>>>>>> > wait for a long time for these features.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Gordon Smith
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: RE: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
>>>>>> easy.
>>>>>> > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth
>>>>>> considering
>>>>>> > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a
>>>>>> > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and
>>>>>> strongly-typed
>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>> > arrays (i.e., int[]).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> > modifications to the old compiler.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > - Gordon
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<we...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +1 Nick
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the
>>>>>> > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Fred
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> > From: Nick Collins
>>>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>>>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> > Subject: Language features
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> > additional language features to our compiler?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as
>>>>>> > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Nick
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Roland
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Roland Zwaga
>>>>> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>>>>>
>>>>> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
>>>>> http://www.stackandheap.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://zwaga.blogspot.com
>>>>> http://www.springactionscript.**org<http://www.springactionscript.org>
>>>>> http://www.as3commons.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
>
--
regards,
Roland
--
Roland Zwaga
Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
+32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com
http://zwaga.blogspot.com
http://www.springactionscript.org
http://www.as3commons.org