I think, if you aren't going to specify those values in MXML, that there
are ways to use internal classes to restrict assignment to a few instances
of an Class. But you can't do enumeration math.
I'm not the language/runtime expert, but I think a lot of the reason for
needing runtime support for language features in AS comes from dealing
with dynamic cases where you don't know the name or type of something.
But maybe for some of these features we could say they don't work
dynamically.
On 1/23/14 3:28 AM, "DarkStone" <darkst...@163.com> wrote:
>I don't like function overloading at all, it causes confusion, think
>about this:
>
>public function dosth(a:int):String
>{
>return "aaa";
>}
>
>public function dosth(b:uint):String
>{
>return "bbb";
>}
>
>Then you call:
>
>var s:String = dosth(15);
>What you will get? Very confusing!
>
>I do want AS3 to support data enumeration for example:
>
>var s:String;
>If we only want to s accept "hello" and "world", in the current AS3 we
>typically declare a Class, define two public static constants:
>
>public class Words
>{
>public static const HELLO:String = "hello";
>
>public static const WORLD:String = "world";
>}
>
>And then we have to restrict the s variable to accept only those two
>words by adding scripts that requires runtime support.
>
>If we can do it like this:
>
>public class Words
>{
>[Enumeration]
>public static const HELLO:String = "hello";
>
>[Enumeration]
>public static const WORLD:String = "world";
>}
>
>var s:String.<Words>;
>
>We can restrict the variable s thru compiler not runtime, it's a very
>useful language feature and long missing by AS3.
>
>In the example above, if you do this:
>
>s = "other words";
>
>The compiler will post an error.
>
>I think you get what I mean.
>
>By adding the [Enumeration] (or [Enum] for short) and String.<Words>
>(TargetType.<AcceptEnumerationClass>), maybe we can do it by modifying
>the flex compiler not the runtime.
>
>I'm not a compiler or runtime expert, may someone share a thought about
>this, thanks : )
>
>Sent from DarkStone's iPhone
>2014-01-23
>
>> 在 2014年1月23日，15:58，Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> 写道：
>>
>> I think we can do a partial implementation by preprocessing and renaming
>> functions without runtime changes, but it will have limitations like
>>using
>> ["functionName"]() syntax won't work.
>>
>>> On 1/22/14 10:22 PM, "Avi Kessner" <akess...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does function overloading require changes to the runtime?
>>>> On Jan 22, 2014 9:30 PM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I looked over the spec to refresh my memory. In addition to
>>>>user-defined
>>>> namespaces, other things that were dropped were E4X, undefined,
>>>> prototypes,
>>>> and dynamic classes. Basically, AS4 became more like Java and less
>>>>like
>>>> Javascript. Dropping any of these things would have a large impact on
>>>> Flex.
>>>> But none of them have to be dropped. You could cherry-pick the
>>>>additions
>>>> (as long as they are implementable on the existing runtime) rather
>>>>than
>>>> the
>>>> removals.
>>>>
>>>> - Gordon
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Gordon Smith [mailto:gosm...@adobe.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell?
>>>>
>>>>> the main thrust of the language was a totally new language geared for
>>>> functional programming, and then some backward compatibility stuff to
>>>> make
>>>> it seem more like ActionScript.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't characterize it that way. To me it felt like incremental
>>>> change
>>>> to AS3. There were still classes and interfaces so I'm not sure what
>>>>you
>>>> mean by "geared for functional programming"; to me it was still
>>>> definitely
>>>> an object-oriented language. It did add "strong function types"'; for
>>>> example
>>>>
>>>> var f:(int, int)=>String;
>>>>
>>>> declared a variable that could only contain a reference to a function
>>>> that
>>>> took two ints and returned a String. It also added array types like
>>>>
>>>> var a:[]int;
>>>>
>>>> - Gordon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:06 AM
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/14 10:55 AM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adobe designed AS4 to be the language for a new Flash runtime ("V12")
>>>>> that it was working on but dropped. (I was working on the AS4
>>>>>compiler
>>>>> then.) Not all features of AS4 can be implemented -- at least not
>>>>> easily and efficiently -- on the existing Flash runtime. However,
>>>>>some
>>>>> features can be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex, I suggest that you try to arrange for the donation of the
>>>>> incomplete AS4 compiler to Apache for cherry-picking.
>>>> Well, donations take a lot of time and energy. I would rather we know
>>>> there is something we want and doesn't require runtime implementation
>>>> before expending that energy.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't looked at the AS4 docs, and Gordon certainly knows better,
>>>>but
>>>> my takeaway from past discussions about AS4 was that it had dual
>>>> personalities: the main thrust of the language was a totally new
>>>> language
>>>> geared for functional programming, and then some backward
>>>>compatibility
>>>> stuff to make it seem more like ActionScript. Sure you could call
>>>>that
>>>> an
>>>> improvement, but I'm not clear it would be an incremental improvement.
>>>> It
>>>> would be like rewriting the framework in Lisp.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Gordon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kessler CTR Mark J [mailto:mark.kessler....@usmc.mil]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:32 AM
>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well using the assumption that AS 4 would be an improvement in some
>>>>> area's from AS3 even if it was an incomplete work. While I haven't
>>>>> looked at it yet, I would be interested in just seeing the
>>>>>differences
>>>>> and bring over small pieces that could be an improvement for us.
>>>>> Assuming it wasn't in the same direction as ASC 2 which started
>>>>>getting
>>>>> rid of things we use.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:20 PM
>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the rules are. The language reference is under
>>>>> Apache license. The specifications are under CC-NC which is not
>>>>>good.
>>>>> I suppose I could try to get that changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But first, come up with something you do want to cherry pick that
>>>>> doesn't require implementation in the runtime.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/14 8:39 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this is hosted publicly but not donated, I assume we cannot
>>>>>> cherry pick any good changes from as4...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: bkelley [mailto:brady.kel...@cleantelligent.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:15 AM
>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DarkStone wrote
>>>>>>> I believe Adobe said in the flash runtime roadmap that AS4 was
>>>> dropped:
>>>>>>> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now they reopen AS4 on GitHub, what does it mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the read me on the github project: "Adobe is publishing the
>>>>>> ActionScript 4 specifications in the hope that they may be useful to
>>>>>> the programming language and managed runtime communities. The
>>>>>> specifications are as they existed when the project with which they
>>>>>> were associated was discontinued and therefore may be considered
>>>>>> incomplete. Source code for the compiler and runtime is not
>>>>>>available.
>>>>>> Adobe has no plans to resume development of ActionScript 4."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like it is just for reference only, Adobe has no plans to
>>>>>> continue development, unfortunately. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/ActionScript-4-W
>>>>>>h
>>>>>> at-
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> he-hell-tp34089p34106.html
>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>>>> Nabble.com.
>>
