You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> on 2018/11/09 02:48:35 UTC
compiler fix for Array.sort
Hi Alex,
I checked and only now realized that you made the change in Language.as
quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method signature
variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the support for
it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month! I hope
I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already begun as
well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to use
that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
compiler-jx for that.
As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless, code
in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this in.
Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
typedefs so far)
...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me know and I
will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the direction of what
I need to do for typedefs.
thanks,
Greg
Re: compiler fix for Array.sort
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
The typedefs will affect code completion, but I think that's "right". If you are using playerglobal, you should get code completion for SWF Array.sort, otherwise, you'll get the one for the browser that doesn't take the flags.
I'm not adamant that we shouldn't hack the typedefs so people can always use SWF Array.sort, but I think there will always be people who want the "low-level".
-Alex
On 11/8/18, 11:39 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for explaining Alex. Then it should be fine as is. You can see the
tests I added for this.
I thought the typedefs might affect code completion in editors or
something like that - like I said I have not done anything with that in the
past, so its something I need to learn.
thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:34 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I don't think I understand your goals here. I didn't know there were bugs
> in the current code, but I'm not surprised either. I was just trying to
> get some other code to work.
>
> Why do we need to change the typedefs? IMO, the typedefs should represent
> what the browser actually supports and the compiler and Language should
> deal with any ActionScript differences. The emitters are where I think
> that should happen. The RoyaleEmitters generate Royale-specific code, but
> other emitters like the GoogEmitter should allow someone to use Google
> Closure Library and write directly at the browser APIs (not the Flash APIs).
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/8/18, 11:06 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see some discussions about messages not getting through on the list
> today, so I can't be sure the last one or this one got through.
> I pushed the commit, but please revert if if you don't want it in the
> release yet.
> thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I checked and only now realized that you made the change in
> Language.as
> > quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method
> signature
> > variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the
> support for
> > it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month!
> I hope
> > I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already
> begun as
> > well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to
> use
> > that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
> > compiler-jx for that.
> > As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless,
> code
> > in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this
> in.
> >
> > Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
> > existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
> > typedefs so far)
> >
> > ...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
> >
> > If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me
> know and
> > I will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the
> direction of
> > what I need to do for typedefs.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: compiler fix for Array.sort
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for explaining Alex. Then it should be fine as is. You can see the
tests I added for this.
I thought the typedefs might affect code completion in editors or
something like that - like I said I have not done anything with that in the
past, so its something I need to learn.
thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:34 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I don't think I understand your goals here. I didn't know there were bugs
> in the current code, but I'm not surprised either. I was just trying to
> get some other code to work.
>
> Why do we need to change the typedefs? IMO, the typedefs should represent
> what the browser actually supports and the compiler and Language should
> deal with any ActionScript differences. The emitters are where I think
> that should happen. The RoyaleEmitters generate Royale-specific code, but
> other emitters like the GoogEmitter should allow someone to use Google
> Closure Library and write directly at the browser APIs (not the Flash APIs).
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/8/18, 11:06 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see some discussions about messages not getting through on the list
> today, so I can't be sure the last one or this one got through.
> I pushed the commit, but please revert if if you don't want it in the
> release yet.
> thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I checked and only now realized that you made the change in
> Language.as
> > quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method
> signature
> > variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the
> support for
> > it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month!
> I hope
> > I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already
> begun as
> > well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to
> use
> > that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
> > compiler-jx for that.
> > As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless,
> code
> > in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this
> in.
> >
> > Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
> > existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
> > typedefs so far)
> >
> > ...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
> >
> > If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me
> know and
> > I will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the
> direction of
> > what I need to do for typedefs.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: compiler fix for Array.sort
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi Greg,
I don't think I understand your goals here. I didn't know there were bugs in the current code, but I'm not surprised either. I was just trying to get some other code to work.
Why do we need to change the typedefs? IMO, the typedefs should represent what the browser actually supports and the compiler and Language should deal with any ActionScript differences. The emitters are where I think that should happen. The RoyaleEmitters generate Royale-specific code, but other emitters like the GoogEmitter should allow someone to use Google Closure Library and write directly at the browser APIs (not the Flash APIs).
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 11/8/18, 11:06 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see some discussions about messages not getting through on the list
today, so I can't be sure the last one or this one got through.
I pushed the commit, but please revert if if you don't want it in the
release yet.
thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I checked and only now realized that you made the change in Language.as
> quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method signature
> variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the support for
> it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month! I hope
> I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already begun as
> well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to use
> that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
> compiler-jx for that.
> As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless, code
> in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this in.
>
> Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
> existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
> typedefs so far)
>
> ...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
>
> If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me know and
> I will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the direction of
> what I need to do for typedefs.
>
> thanks,
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: compiler fix for Array.sort
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
I see some discussions about messages not getting through on the list
today, so I can't be sure the last one or this one got through.
I pushed the commit, but please revert if if you don't want it in the
release yet.
thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I checked and only now realized that you made the change in Language.as
> quite recently to add support for actionscript Array.sort method signature
> variations to javascript - I looked in Language.as and saw the support for
> it but did not check when it was added until just now - last month! I hope
> I did not double up on the compler side which you may have already begun as
> well... I have a fix ready for the 2 method signatures that need to use
> that Language.sort call with the options argument, and new tests in
> compiler-jx for that.
> As I suspect you are aware, currently it gives wrong, but errorless, code
> in some places, like mx.colllections.Sort, so I am keen to get this in.
>
> Does anything else need doing for typedefs - do I need to update an
> existing method signature, and if so, how? (I didn't do anything in
> typedefs so far)
>
> ...if so, I *think* it just needs the optional options arg...
>
> If the typedefs change can wait, or is not needed, please let me know and
> I will push this fix asap, otherwise please point me in the direction of
> what I need to do for typedefs.
>
> thanks,
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>