You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> on 2013/01/01 18:50:08 UTC
Re: [Wiki] AS3 language features to be simulated
> I did checkout your project from GIT locally and will use that to start
> investigating in my free time. I probably will also create another emitter
> subclass to experiment with producing your examples so we can compare the
> two down the road.
My thoughts exactly. The goog and jangaroo (for lack of a better working
title) approaches are mutually exclusive in their choices wrt inheritance
and other key language features (scoping etc.), so the only way not to get
in each other's hairs all the time is to have separate playgrounds :-)
> If I do this, it may allow you to check out the FalconJx code and start
> submitting some patches against it.
>
> Mike
>
> Quoting Frank Wienberg <fr...@jangaroo.net>:
>
> Hi Mike,
>>
>> sorry if I confused you, the Wiki page is still work in progress and much
>> my "brain dump" of all AS3 features I know have to be simulated, and also
>> how I'd suggest to do so.
>> As I continue, I'm going to add more illustrating examples. Concerning the
>> private members, I think you are on the right track. The "class
>> inheritance
>> level" I am talking about is an optimization over using the fully
>> qualified
>> name of the class as postfix for private fields. In Jangaroo, we compute
>> the inheritance level (or depth) of the class and simply use that number.
>> This also ensures unique identifiers, as a class can never have the same
>> inheritance level as any super or sub class.
>>
>> Greetings
>> -Frank-
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Michael Schmalle
>> <ap...@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
>>
>> Hey Frank,
>>>
>>> I'm getting a bit confused here. I guess I really need to spend some time
>>> and get the relevant javascript information under my belt.
>>>
>>> Is what you are showing on this page, your solution?
>>>
>>> Please comment on the below if the code is what you are talking about in
>>> those paragraphs;
>>>
>>>
>>> Members and visibility
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>> private function _privateMethod():void {
>>> }
>>> - this._privateMethod()
>>>
>>> public var foo:int;
>>> - foo = 42
>>>
>>> private var foo:int;
>>> - foo$FooClass = 42
>>>
>>> internal bar:int;
>>> - bar$foo_bar_baz
>>>
>>> The above seems like it's going to be pretty universal regardless of what
>>> production scheme we use. Is there any articles you know about that
>>> explain
>>> JS scope and how it's implemented? Or is that just the ECMA5 specs?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [Wiki] AS3 language features to be simulated
Posted by Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com>.
Quoting Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>> I did checkout your project from GIT locally and will use that to start
>> investigating in my free time. I probably will also create another emitter
>> subclass to experiment with producing your examples so we can compare the
>> two down the road.
>
>
> My thoughts exactly. The goog and jangaroo (for lack of a better working
> title) approaches are mutually exclusive in their choices wrt inheritance
> and other key language features (scoping etc.), so the only way not to get
> in each other's hairs all the time is to have separate playgrounds :-)
HAHA, I think you misread what I said. In no way shape or for was
there ever going to be only 1 emitter. :) What I meant was sooner than
later I am going to create the "other" emitter so we have a side by
side functionality happening. IE Developed together so there is no
"lag" time when we get to decisions.
Mike
>
>> If I do this, it may allow you to check out the FalconJx code and start
>> submitting some patches against it.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Quoting Frank Wienberg <fr...@jangaroo.net>:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> sorry if I confused you, the Wiki page is still work in progress and much
>>> my "brain dump" of all AS3 features I know have to be simulated, and also
>>> how I'd suggest to do so.
>>> As I continue, I'm going to add more illustrating examples. Concerning the
>>> private members, I think you are on the right track. The "class
>>> inheritance
>>> level" I am talking about is an optimization over using the fully
>>> qualified
>>> name of the class as postfix for private fields. In Jangaroo, we compute
>>> the inheritance level (or depth) of the class and simply use that number.
>>> This also ensures unique identifiers, as a class can never have the same
>>> inheritance level as any super or sub class.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> -Frank-
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Michael Schmalle
>>> <ap...@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Frank,
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting a bit confused here. I guess I really need to spend some time
>>>> and get the relevant javascript information under my belt.
>>>>
>>>> Is what you are showing on this page, your solution?
>>>>
>>>> Please comment on the below if the code is what you are talking about in
>>>> those paragraphs;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Members and visibility
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>
>>>> private function _privateMethod():void {
>>>> }
>>>> - this._privateMethod()
>>>>
>>>> public var foo:int;
>>>> - foo = 42
>>>>
>>>> private var foo:int;
>>>> - foo$FooClass = 42
>>>>
>>>> internal bar:int;
>>>> - bar$foo_bar_baz
>>>>
>>>> The above seems like it's going to be pretty universal regardless of what
>>>> production scheme we use. Is there any articles you know about that
>>>> explain
>>>> JS scope and how it's implemented? Or is that just the ECMA5 specs?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>>>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com