Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Language features
From: rol...@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 <nicho...@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 <tang...@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:webdoubl...@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:webdoubl...@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 | rol...@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com
http://zwaga.blogspot.com
http://www.springactionscript.org
http://www.as3commons.org
