Using flex-typedefs is a good idea! I don't have time at the moment, but if I remember in a few weeks, I'll try to take a look. If anyone else can jump in sooner, feel free.
- Josh On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Josh, > > Do you have time to work on it? I think ASDoc just processes a set of > source paths. It might be possible to point a source path to the .as > files from flex-typedefs. > > -Alex > > On 9/15/16, 9:06 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I was talking to someone who is using FlexJS to build an app. One thing > >they mentioned is that they found it confusing that top level classes like > >String, Array, etc. were not in the FlexJS asdoc, but others like QName > >and > >Namespace were. > > > >Now, I understand that we have custom implementations of Namespace and > >QName because they don't exist in JavaScript, and the other classes are > >native so we don't have classes to parse for the asdocs. However, it's > >still a good point about possible confusion. Especially if you consider > >that someone might be migrating an existing Flex app to FlexJS, and it's > >not clear if a class isn't in the asdocs because it doesn't exist in the > >new framework or for another reason. > > > >At the very least, it might help if there were some kind of explanation > >about why these classes are "missing". I think the asdoc tool supports > >extended package descriptions somehow, and it might be a good idea to > >point > >to Adobe's docs, or MDN, or somewhere that has full details about > >available > >APIs for some of these classes. Or maybe we could create stub classes that > >are only used for documentation that at least have basic descriptions. > > > >- Josh > >
