You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/01 11:24:06 UTC
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
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
Naming AS3 future versions - was Re: Language features
Posted by Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com>.
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: Language features
Posted by 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
>>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
on a related note:
http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html
:)
On 5 February 2013 11:37, Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com> 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
RE: Language features
Posted by Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com>.
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: Language features
Posted by 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
RE: Language features
Posted by Mark Fuqua <ma...@availdata.com>.
I have found Flex is much better received than Flash. In truth, Flex
developers are Flash developers, but I never liked using that
description...I develop Flex applications.
I guess I drank a little too much of the Macromedia/Adobe Kool-Aid, but I
never understood why so many hated Flash, but they sure did. Flex didn't
seem to pick up the same garbage. I absolutely rebelled at the re-branding
of Flex builder as Flash Builder (I still call it Flex Builder).
Going forward, especially with all the cross compiling efforts underway, I
would try and put the Flex name on everything Apache Flex did.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: James Roland Cabresos [mailto:j.cabresos@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:25 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
Oh, what the hell I'm typing, I'm typing drunk... Let me rephrase what I
just said earlier:
Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML
which came to be known to most people as Flex. I get to ask a lot of people
mostly web developers what they know about Flex and most people think Flex
is a different language/platform rather than an SDK or a framework for
Flash. I think this a common misconception going around the community of web
developers.. at least from where am at. I don't have the numbers but on my
end that's how I see it. Thinking of this misconception going around,
sticking with Flex as a name for an Actionscript version with added features
would be great.
Flex is already halfway to become a full programming language of it's own
with it's own markup language based on XML, adding features on top of
Actionscript is going all the way.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:11 PM, James Roland Cabresos
<j....@gmail.com>wrote:
> Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML.
> This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot
> and most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a
> framework for Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I
> think sticking with Flex as the name for AS with new language
> features. Flex built a markup language base on XML, why not do the same
thing with actionscript?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga
<ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by James Roland Cabresos <j....@gmail.com>.
Oh, what the hell I'm typing, I'm typing drunk... Let me rephrase what I
just said earlier:
Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML
which came to be known to most people as Flex. I get to ask a lot of people
mostly web developers what they know about Flex and most people think Flex
is a different language/platform rather than an SDK or a framework for
Flash. I think this a common misconception going around the community of
web developers.. at least from where am at. I don't have the numbers but on
my end that's how I see it. Thinking of this misconception going around,
sticking with Flex as a name for an Actionscript version with added
features would be great.
Flex is already halfway to become a full programming language of it's own
with it's own markup language based on XML, adding features on top of
Actionscript is going all the way.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:11 PM, James Roland Cabresos
<j....@gmail.com>wrote:
> Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML.
> This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot and
> most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a framework for
> Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I think sticking with
> Flex as the name for AS with new language features. Flex built a markup
> language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by James Roland Cabresos <j....@gmail.com>.
Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML.
This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot and
most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a framework for
Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I think sticking with
Flex as the name for AS with new language features. Flex built a markup
language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
> 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
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
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
Re: Language features
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
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
>
>
RE: Language features
Posted by Tianzhen Lin <ta...@usa.net>.
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
Re: Language features
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
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
RE: Language features
Posted by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>.
One more. I want to introduce annotations/attributes depending on if you speak Java or C#.
Basically, real classes backing things like metadata as opposed to just fancy strings we can parse.
Mike
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
That wouldn't work for overloaded methods with multiple parameters,
unfortunately
On 6 February 2013 19:51, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Michael A. Labriola <
> labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
>
> > >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> > -stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
> > >Then I think you wouldn't need that?
> >
> > It's probably not. At the time I was trying to add features but not
> > 'break' anything... hence the reason I was working on that strategy.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> But we can still do:
>
> instance["overloadedFunctionName"](obj)
>
> where obj is of type Object.
>
> Today, the compiler does not care about this call. Would -stricterthanhell
> option catch this?
>
> Om
>
--
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
Re: Language features
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/6/13 10:51 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But we can still do:
>
> instance["overloadedFunctionName"](obj)
>
> where obj is of type Object.
>
> Today, the compiler does not care about this call. Would -stricterthanhell
> option catch this?
>
> Om
I think it would have to. But that example is easy compared to:
var foo:String;
instance[foo]();
No way to know that foo will really be.
It looks like overloading may have to go hand-in-hand with function typing
if we want to take the C++ approach to overloading.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Language features
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Michael A. Labriola <
labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> -stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
> >Then I think you wouldn't need that?
>
> It's probably not. At the time I was trying to add features but not
> 'break' anything... hence the reason I was working on that strategy.
>
> Mike
>
But we can still do:
instance["overloadedFunctionName"](obj)
where obj is of type Object.
Today, the compiler does not care about this call. Would -stricterthanhell
option catch this?
Om
Re: Language features
Posted by Hugo Miguel Pereira Matinho <hu...@gmail.com>.
you could just type the param to an interface as long as your
implementation would validate the contract you'd be good to go :)
ps: btw, actionscript does have a "form" of singletons
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >still the approach of adding the (...param) option seems like a viable
> solution, what problems did you run into while implementing?
>
> Know the actual names of the viable methods, its particularly a problem
> with polymorphism.
>
> function foo( value1:Object ):void;
> function foo( value1:Person ):void;
>
> I need to know which of these to call and when. So, first I need to know
> all the viable options and then discern from the data passed which is the
> correct option.
>
> Mike
>
>
RE: Language features
Posted by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>.
>still the approach of adding the (...param) option seems like a viable solution, what problems did you run into while implementing?
Know the actual names of the viable methods, its particularly a problem with polymorphism.
function foo( value1:Object ):void;
function foo( value1:Person ):void;
I need to know which of these to call and when. So, first I need to know all the viable options and then discern from the data passed which is the correct option.
Mike
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
still the approach of adding the (...param) option seems like a viable
solution, what problems did you run into while implementing?
On 6 February 2013 19:43, Michael A. Labriola
<la...@digitalprimates.net>wrote:
> >Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
> -stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
> >Then I think you wouldn't need that?
>
> It's probably not. At the time I was trying to add features but not
> 'break' anything... hence the reason I was working on that strategy.
>
> Mike
>
--
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
RE: Language features
Posted by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>.
>Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new -stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
>Then I think you wouldn't need that?
It's probably not. At the time I was trying to add features but not 'break' anything... hence the reason I was working on that strategy.
Mike
Re: Language features
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/6/13 8:45 AM, "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>
wrote:
> Where I got stuck was also trying to regenerate a new
>
> function foo( ...args ):void;
>
> which would figure out which of the other methods to call if someone tried to
> invoke this in dynamic code that I could not check/change at compile time.
>
Is that really required? Maybe overloading needs to come with a new
-stricterthanhell option that prevents calling functions against Object.
Then I think you wouldn't need that?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
RE: Language features
Posted by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>.
>Hmm, what does "not allow" mean? I haven't figured out how to code up overloaded constructors, but for other methods, I was thinking we could teach the compiler to generate >decorated function names sort of like I remember C++ doing back in my Windows programming days.
Many moons ago in the prototype work I was doing for Spoon, I was trying the following with the compiler:
function foo( value1:String ):void;
function foo( value1:String, value2:int ):void;
function foo( value1:Bar, value2:int ):void;
would become:
function fooString( value1:String ):void;
function fooStringInt( value1:String, value2:int ):void;
function fooBarInt( value1:Bar, value2:int ):void;
Where I got stuck was also trying to regenerate a new
function foo( ...args ):void;
which would figure out which of the other methods to call if someone tried to invoke this in dynamic code that I could not check/change at compile time.
Mike
Re: Language features
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/6/13 2:48 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <ma...@usmc.mil> wrote:
> I love having overloaded functions. It's nice to have the same function name
> and usage but with different data types passed. However ECMAScript does not
> allow for it.
Hmm, what does "not allow" mean? I haven't figured out how to code up
overloaded constructors, but for other methods, I was thinking we could
teach the compiler to generate decorated function names sort of like I
remember C++ doing back in my Windows programming days.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
RE: Language features
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
I love having overloaded functions. It's nice to have the same function name and usage but with different data types passed. However ECMAScript does not allow for it.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Kessner [mailto:akessner@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:14 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good for
those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just casting
the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if
statements.
Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than once,
(reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong var
types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they
overloaded this function!"
It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons and
not for theoretical reasons like generics.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements or a
> switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate method.
> To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
> >wrote:
>
> > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send
> > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the
> > same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
> >
> > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
> >
> > serial.send(var);
> >
> > but I have to have :
> >
> > serial.sendAsInt(int);
> > serial.sendAsObject(object);
> > serial.sendAsArray(array);
> > serial.sendAsString(string);
> > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> > serial.sendAsByte(int);
> > serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> > ....
> > ....
> >
> > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
> > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
> > etc.
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> > >
> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > > and the number 47
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> > probably
> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > > >
> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > > >
> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > > >
> > > > > And:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > > > >
> > > > > -Fred
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> > > things I
> > > > > miss from Java...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
> > think
> > > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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<
> > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>.
Is this really any different though than those who might try to compile a
Flex application from within the Flash IDE?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
> > >
> > I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no
> changes
> > to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, there is mention of language development
> > for
> > web-based virtual machines.
> >
> > So, while your concerns are valid, I think Apache Flex should plow ahead
> in
> > whatever direction it wants to go and only worry about compiler/language
> > forking if it actually happens. Hopefully, Gordon and/or I will be able
> to
> > provide early warning.
> >
> > Also, I could be wrong, but I think everything proposed so far can be
> > handled as a pre-processor phase (not that we'd actually do it that way)
> so
> > it wouldn't be impossible to provide a shim for the ASC2.0.
> >
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> yea, I think you got my drift :) I also didn't mean this discussion to
> result into
> immediate action. I was just wondering about some of the implications.
> Imagine the case where we add language features and folks try to compile
> these
> using ASC2.0, they would get errors naturally. I'm guessing these folks
> would be
> confused by this, since they are under the impression that they're coding
> in
> AS3, and ASC2.0 is an AS3 compiler. (Says so on the box :))
>
> Like I say, I have no idea what the exact action should be, I'm only
> pointing out
> that this situation might arise, and I'm wondering how it should be dealt
> with.
>
> Hence the suggestion of a name change, but that was merely one way of
> handling this.
>
> cheers,
>
> Roland
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/5/13 8:25 AM, "Roland Zwaga" <ro...@stackandheap.com> wrote:
> I was just wondering about some of the implications.
> Imagine the case where we add language features and folks try to compile
> these
> using ASC2.0, they would get errors naturally. I'm guessing these folks
> would be
> confused by this, since they are under the impression that they're coding in
> AS3, and ASC2.0 is an AS3 compiler. (Says so on the box :))
Well, I guess that's valid, but a couple of poinfs:
1) That's already the case. ASC2.0 will not compile the Flex SDK. It turns
out there are syntax errors that MXMLC did not catch that ASC2.0 will.
2) IMO, 99% of folks using Flex will use MXML which ASC2.0 does not handle.
Also, IMO, I'm not clear these new language features, whenever the actually
happen, are going to be applied to the current SDK. There are backward
compatibility issues with the APIs, and I'm not sure how many folks will be
doing new work against the current SDK at that point in the future.
Furthermore, I am not clear that better type information in the language
would truly work against the current SDK. The current API has too many
places where things are typed as Object or "*". This may force you to use
the Vector() function to "coerce" back to the typed vector, and I believe
that is a costly thing to do in the current VM. IIRC, type-casting in AS3
is really a function call (that I think for Vector visits every element),
not a compiler thing.
In the new framework I'm prototyping I've played around with different APIs
that allow you to better maintain strong-typing throughout your code. If
you look at the List class I checked in recently in the ASJS branch, the
data model is a "bead" (plug-in) that you can access directly. This means
you could swap in different data models to directly support the type of your
data.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
> >
> I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no changes
> to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, there is mention of language development
> for
> web-based virtual machines.
>
> So, while your concerns are valid, I think Apache Flex should plow ahead in
> whatever direction it wants to go and only worry about compiler/language
> forking if it actually happens. Hopefully, Gordon and/or I will be able to
> provide early warning.
>
> Also, I could be wrong, but I think everything proposed so far can be
> handled as a pre-processor phase (not that we'd actually do it that way) so
> it wouldn't be impossible to provide a shim for the ASC2.0.
>
Hey Alex,
yea, I think you got my drift :) I also didn't mean this discussion to
result into
immediate action. I was just wondering about some of the implications.
Imagine the case where we add language features and folks try to compile
these
using ASC2.0, they would get errors naturally. I'm guessing these folks
would be
confused by this, since they are under the impression that they're coding in
AS3, and ASC2.0 is an AS3 compiler. (Says so on the box :))
Like I say, I have no idea what the exact action should be, I'm only
pointing out
that this situation might arise, and I'm wondering how it should be dealt
with.
Hence the suggestion of a name change, but that was merely one way of
handling this.
cheers,
Roland
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
AS3 might have been in the hands of Adobe, but projects were not.
I don't see the conceptual difference between the Adobe compiler and the
Apache compiler, or the Flash Builder vs Flash Professional compilers. (at
least for a brief moment in time, they were different) Or the project that
targets SDK 4.1 and flash player 9 or the project that uses SDK 4.6 and
flash player 11.1
They had some significant differences, and projects would not compile if
you were targeting the wrong version of either the SDK or the player, yet
it was all AS3.
Perhaps if Flex get's it's own version of the flash player and there is a
drastic divergence, then I can see the need.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
> People seem to be missing my point...
> Adobe and Apache Flex now both have a compiler, so both are in a position
> to make changes to the language. If these changes aren't in sync then
> effectively
> two separate languages are evolving. Therefore neither of them is AS3
> anymore. (ot at least one of them...)
> When Vectors were introduced AS3 was still solely in the hands of Adobe.
> This isn't the case anymore.
>
> On 5 February 2013 12:15, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No need to change the name IMO. We didn't get AS3.1 when we got Vectors
> or
> > native JSON support.
> >
> > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > and the number 47
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
> > > something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good
> > for
> > > those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just
> > casting
> > > the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if
> > > statements.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than
> once,
> > > (reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong
> var
> > > types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they
> > > overloaded this function!"
> > >
> > > It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons
> > > and not for theoretical reasons like generics.
> > >
> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > > and the number 47
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements
> > or a
> > >> switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate
> > method.
> > >> To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <
> nicholas@spoon.as
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to
> > >> send
> > >> > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that
> do
> > >> the
> > >> > same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
> > >> >
> > >> > serial.send(var);
> > >> >
> > >> > but I have to have :
> > >> >
> > >> > serial.sendAsInt(int);
> > >> > serial.sendAsObject(object);
> > >> > serial.sendAsArray(array);
> > >> > serial.sendAsString(string);
> > >> > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> > >> > serial.sendAsByte(int);
> > >> > serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> > >> > ....
> > >> > ....
> > >> >
> > >> > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> > >> > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that,
> but
> > it
> > >> > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better
> > code-reuse,
> > >> > etc.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Nick
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > >> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > >> > > and the number 47
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <
> > roland@stackandheap.com
> > >> > > >wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> > >> > probably
> > >> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > >> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > And:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >> > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > >> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > >> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Fred
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > >> > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > >> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> > > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of
> the
> > >> > > things I
> > >> > > > > miss from Java...
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Nick
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <
> > akessner@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading.
> > I
> > >> > think
> > >> > > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > >> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 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<
> > >> > > > > > 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
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/5/13 3:26 AM, "Roland Zwaga" <ro...@stackandheap.com> wrote:
> People seem to be missing my point...
> Adobe and Apache Flex now both have a compiler, so both are in a position
> to make changes to the language. If these changes aren't in sync then
> effectively
> two separate languages are evolving. Therefore neither of them is AS3
> anymore. (ot at least one of them...)
> When Vectors were introduced AS3 was still solely in the hands of Adobe.
> This isn't the case anymore.
>
I think I understand you, but if you read the whitepaper again, no changes
to AS3 are mentioned. Instead, there is mention of language development for
web-based virtual machines.
So, while your concerns are valid, I think Apache Flex should plow ahead in
whatever direction it wants to go and only worry about compiler/language
forking if it actually happens. Hopefully, Gordon and/or I will be able to
provide early warning.
Also, I could be wrong, but I think everything proposed so far can be
handled as a pre-processor phase (not that we'd actually do it that way) so
it wouldn't be impossible to provide a shim for the ASC2.0.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
People seem to be missing my point...
Adobe and Apache Flex now both have a compiler, so both are in a position
to make changes to the language. If these changes aren't in sync then
effectively
two separate languages are evolving. Therefore neither of them is AS3
anymore. (ot at least one of them...)
When Vectors were introduced AS3 was still solely in the hands of Adobe.
This isn't the case anymore.
On 5 February 2013 12:15, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No need to change the name IMO. We didn't get AS3.1 when we got Vectors or
> native JSON support.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
> > something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good
> for
> > those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just
> casting
> > the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if
> > statements.
> >
> > Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than once,
> > (reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong var
> > types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they
> > overloaded this function!"
> >
> > It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons
> > and not for theoretical reasons like generics.
> >
> > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > and the number 47
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements
> or a
> >> switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate
> method.
> >> To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to
> >> send
> >> > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do
> >> the
> >> > same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
> >> >
> >> > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
> >> >
> >> > serial.send(var);
> >> >
> >> > but I have to have :
> >> >
> >> > serial.sendAsInt(int);
> >> > serial.sendAsObject(object);
> >> > serial.sendAsArray(array);
> >> > serial.sendAsString(string);
> >> > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> >> > serial.sendAsByte(int);
> >> > serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> >> > ....
> >> > ....
> >> >
> >> > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> >> > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but
> it
> >> > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better
> code-reuse,
> >> > etc.
> >> >
> >> > -Nick
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> >> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> >> > >
> >> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> >> > > and the number 47
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <
> roland@stackandheap.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> >> > probably
> >> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> >> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > And:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> >> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> >> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Fred
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> >> > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> >> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> >> > > things I
> >> > > > > miss from Java...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Nick
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <
> akessner@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading.
> I
> >> > think
> >> > > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> >> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >> > > > > > >wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 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<
> >> > > > > > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
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
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
No need to change the name IMO. We didn't get AS3.1 when we got Vectors or
native JSON support.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
> something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good for
> those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just casting
> the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if
> statements.
>
> Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than once,
> (reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong var
> types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they
> overloaded this function!"
>
> It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons
> and not for theoretical reasons like generics.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements or a
>> switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate method.
>> To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to
>> send
>> > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do
>> the
>> > same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
>> >
>> > serial.send(var);
>> >
>> > but I have to have :
>> >
>> > serial.sendAsInt(int);
>> > serial.sendAsObject(object);
>> > serial.sendAsArray(array);
>> > serial.sendAsString(string);
>> > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
>> > serial.sendAsByte(int);
>> > serial.sendAsFloat(float);
>> > ....
>> > ....
>> >
>> > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
>> > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
>> > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > -Nick
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
>> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
>> > >
>> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
>> > > and the number 47
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
>> > probably
>> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
>> > > >
>> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
>> > > >
>> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
>> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
>> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Fred
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
>> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
>> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Language features
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
>> > > things I
>> > > > > miss from Java...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Nick
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
>> > think
>> > > > > > that's a code smell personally.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
>> > > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 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<
>> > > > > > 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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing
something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good for
those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just casting
the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if
statements.
Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than once,
(reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong var
types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they
overloaded this function!"
It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons and
not for theoretical reasons like generics.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements or a
> switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate method.
> To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
> >wrote:
>
> > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send
> > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the
> > same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
> >
> > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
> >
> > serial.send(var);
> >
> > but I have to have :
> >
> > serial.sendAsInt(int);
> > serial.sendAsObject(object);
> > serial.sendAsArray(array);
> > serial.sendAsString(string);
> > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> > serial.sendAsByte(int);
> > serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> > ....
> > ....
> >
> > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
> > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
> > etc.
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> > >
> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > > and the number 47
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> > probably
> > > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > > >
> > > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > > >
> > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > > >
> > > > > And:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > > > >
> > > > > -Fred
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> > > things I
> > > > > miss from Java...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
> > think
> > > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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<
> > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>.
This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements or a
switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate method.
To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :)
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>wrote:
> One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send
> data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the
> same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
>
> Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
>
> serial.send(var);
>
> but I have to have :
>
> serial.sendAsInt(int);
> serial.sendAsObject(object);
> serial.sendAsArray(array);
> serial.sendAsString(string);
> serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> serial.sendAsByte(int);
> serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> ....
> ....
>
> This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
> seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
> etc.
>
> -Nick
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> >
> > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > and the number 47
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> probably
> > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > >
> > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > >
> > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > >
> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > > >
> > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > > >
> > > > -Fred
> > > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > > >
> > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> > things I
> > > > miss from Java...
> > > >
> > > > -Nick
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
> think
> > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > > >
> > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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<
> > > > > 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by James Roland Cabresos <j....@gmail.com>.
+1 for these language features!
abstract classes
generics
method overloading
reflection perhaps?
These features are the biggest selling point of the famous programming
languages today. I maybe right or wrong, but I think having these features
may help targeting HTML/JS apps.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Michael A. Labriola <
labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >I'm not sure if I would overload functions or just accept a non-typed
> param and then check it's type as a wrapper.
>
> Which is why people have overloading, so you don't have to do stuff like
> that... accepting an * means people have no idea what is legal to pass you
> and have to wait for a runtime error to find out... That is kind of the
> opposite of a descriptive API
>
>
RE: Language features
Posted by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net>.
>I'm not sure if I would overload functions or just accept a non-typed param and then check it's type as a wrapper.
Which is why people have overloading, so you don't have to do stuff like that... accepting an * means people have no idea what is legal to pass you and have to wait for a runtime error to find out... That is kind of the opposite of a descriptive API
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
Interesting case. I'm not sure if I would overload functions or just
accept a non-typed param and then check it's type as a wrapper. Seems like
a lot of duplicate code to have each function exist separately, but maybe
not.
I guess it would just be another language feature, like singletons that
some circles of devs tell each other not to use if they want to be 'cool'
and not get bit later. :)
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>wrote:
> One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send
> data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the
> same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
>
> Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
>
> serial.send(var);
>
> but I have to have :
>
> serial.sendAsInt(int);
> serial.sendAsObject(object);
> serial.sendAsArray(array);
> serial.sendAsString(string);
> serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
> serial.sendAsByte(int);
> serial.sendAsFloat(float);
> ....
> ....
>
> This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
> function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
> seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
> etc.
>
> -Nick
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
> >
> > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> > and the number 47
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is
> probably
> > > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> > >
> > > +1 for lamba expressions
> > >
> > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > > >
> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > > >
> > > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > > >
> > > > -Fred
> > > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > > >
> > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> > things I
> > > > miss from Java...
> > > >
> > > > -Nick
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
> think
> > > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > > >
> > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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<
> > > > > 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send
data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the
same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
Ultimately, I'd like my API to be
serial.send(var);
but I have to have :
serial.sendAsInt(int);
serial.sendAsObject(object);
serial.sendAsArray(array);
serial.sendAsString(string);
serial.sendAsByteArray(ba);
serial.sendAsByte(int);
serial.sendAsFloat(float);
....
....
This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different
function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it
seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse,
etc.
-Nick
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> >wrote:
>
> > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably
> > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> >
> > +1 for lamba expressions
> >
> > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > >
> > > And:
> > >
> > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> things I
> > > miss from Java...
> > >
> > > -Nick
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > >
> > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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<
> > > > 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
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Alain Ekambi <ja...@gmail.com>.
oh my bad i read overwriting. Sorry :)
2013/2/3 Alain Ekambi <ja...@gmail.com>
> @Avi Kessner
>
> polymorphism ?
>
>
> 2013/2/3 Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
>
>> I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
>> functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
>>
>> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
>> and the number 47
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably
>> > one of the most difficult features to implement)
>> >
>> > +1 for lamba expressions
>> >
>> > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 for method overloading from me too
>> > >
>> > > And:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
>> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Betreff: Re: Language features
>> > >
>> > > Nick, +1 or even 10
>> > >
>> > > -Fred
>> > >
>> > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
>> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: Language features
>> > >
>> > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
>> things I
>> > > miss from Java...
>> > >
>> > > -Nick
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I
>> think
>> > > > that's a code smell personally.
>> > > >
>> > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 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<
>> > > > 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
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Alain Ekambi <ja...@gmail.com>.
@Avi Kessner
polymorphism ?
2013/2/3 Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
> functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com
> >wrote:
>
> > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably
> > one of the most difficult features to implement)
> >
> > +1 for lamba expressions
> >
> > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for method overloading from me too
> > >
> > > And:
> > >
> > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > Nick, +1 or even 10
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the
> things I
> > > miss from Java...
> > >
> > > -Nick
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> > > > that's a code smell personally.
> > > >
> > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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<
> > > > 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
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading
functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>wrote:
> +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably
> one of the most difficult features to implement)
>
> +1 for lamba expressions
>
> On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> > +1 for method overloading from me too
> >
> > And:
> >
> > +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Language features
> >
> > Nick, +1 or even 10
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Language features
> >
> > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I
> > miss from Java...
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> > > that's a code smell personally.
> > >
> > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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<
> > > 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
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Roland Zwaga <ro...@stackandheap.com>.
+100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably
one of the most difficult features to implement)
+1 for lamba expressions
On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> +1 for method overloading from me too
>
> And:
>
> +1 for private/protected constructors :-)
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Language features
>
> Nick, +1 or even 10
>
> -Fred
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Language features
>
> I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I
> miss from Java...
>
> -Nick
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> > that's a code smell personally.
> >
> > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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<
> > 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
AW: Language features
Posted by "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <ch...@c-ware.de>.
+1 for method overloading from me too
And:
+1 for private/protected constructors :-)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Language features
Nick, +1 or even 10
-Fred
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I miss from Java...
-Nick
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> that's a code smell personally.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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<
> 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
> >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Nick, +1 or even 10
-Fred
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language features
I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I
miss from Java...
-Nick
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> that's a code smell personally.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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<
> 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
> >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the things I
miss from Java...
-Nick
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
> that's a code smell personally.
>
> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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<
> 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
> >
> >
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think
that's a code smell personally.
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
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
RE: Language features
Posted by Gordon Smith <go...@adobe.com>.
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
Re: Language features
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
+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
Re: Language features
Posted by Kevin Newman <Ca...@unFocus.com>.
I do that too, but usually only when there is also a getter/setter (it's
probably bad practice, but that's what I do). I also though it could
work to use the "$" for private and protected vars, and leave public
getter/setters unprefixed, but it still wouldn't be obvious that you are
using a public property or method over a locally defined variable or
function etc.. The @ symbol (as a replacement for "this.") would make it
all much more obvious.
Anyway, just an idea :-)
Kevin N.
On 2/12/13 12:39 PM, Avi Kessner wrote:
> Our coding convention is to preface all private vars with _ so you have
> _myVar as a private class scopes var and myVar as a method argument or temp
> var which only exists in the scope of the function.
> On Feb 12, 2013 6:27 PM, "Kevin Newman" <Ca...@unfocus.com> wrote:
>
>> This might seem like a minor thing, but I'd love to see a property
>> shortcut similar to coffee script, so instead of this.whateverProp, it'd be
>> @whateverProp. I know we can just omit "this." in AS3, but I think it's
>> actually harder to read that when you come back to a code base after a few
>> years (like I'm doing now). Using "this." or simply "@" to indicate a
>> property would more clearly distinguish between property and scope chain
>> variable, with a minimum of additional typing overhead.
>>
>> Kevin N.
>>
>>
Re: Language features
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
Our coding convention is to preface all private vars with _ so you have
_myVar as a private class scopes var and myVar as a method argument or temp
var which only exists in the scope of the function.
On Feb 12, 2013 6:27 PM, "Kevin Newman" <Ca...@unfocus.com> wrote:
> This might seem like a minor thing, but I'd love to see a property
> shortcut similar to coffee script, so instead of this.whateverProp, it'd be
> @whateverProp. I know we can just omit "this." in AS3, but I think it's
> actually harder to read that when you come back to a code base after a few
> years (like I'm doing now). Using "this." or simply "@" to indicate a
> property would more clearly distinguish between property and scope chain
> variable, with a minimum of additional typing overhead.
>
> Kevin N.
>
>
Re: Language features
Posted by Kevin Newman <Ca...@unFocus.com>.
This might seem like a minor thing, but I'd love to see a property
shortcut similar to coffee script, so instead of this.whateverProp, it'd
be @whateverProp. I know we can just omit "this." in AS3, but I think
it's actually harder to read that when you come back to a code base
after a few years (like I'm doing now). Using "this." or simply "@" to
indicate a property would more clearly distinguish between property and
scope chain variable, with a minimum of additional typing overhead.
Kevin N.