On 12/15/16, 4:04 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >justo reading the problem, I think things for our users (devs) should be >more easy and don't expect they know he must remove something for two >places instead of one. >Could we have the beads storage unified? if not I think it could be very >hard to deal with My point was that things specified in MXML are tricky to get rid of in other ways as well. If you have a proposal on how to do that without a lot of overhead, please propose it. And you are welcome to create a component set with such overhead. IMO, most things declared in MXML do not get removed. In particular, the Arrays are not watchable, so there is no way to know if the beads Array gets modified, and I didn't want to introduce a watchable Array just-in-case. MXML knows about arrays so specifying a list of beads didn't require new compiler work. -Alex
