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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
