My gut feeling would be to strive for consistency in how the automatic type
conversion behaves. If some function calls have it, and others don't, that's
potentially confusing. Someone used to AS3 behavior might expect undefined to
become NaN, and they'll wonder why it didn't happen in one place when it
happens in others. (That particular one may be rare, but some of the other
conversions will definitely be expected to have consistency, like converting to
int or String).
I guess what I don't understand it this: Why is the limit parameter typed as *
here?
split(delimiter:* = undefined, limit:* = undefined):Array
To me, there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept non-numeric values for
limit. This seems like a perfect situation to take advantage of typing because
that's why we've chosen AS3 over JS.
- Josh
On 2019/02/19 17:36:23, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did not mean that Number(undefined) shouldn’t become NaN. That’s correct
> behavior. I was questioning the coercion here.
>
> I already changed XML to used bracketed access for this problem.
>
> I’m not thrilled about passing in a number to split. My gut tells me that
> it’s probably slower than undefined. (Although for XML methods it’s probably
> not that big a deal.)
>
> I’m more concerned about client code. Native JS methods don’t really have the
> same signatures as Flash ones and JS is pretty good about handling all kinds
> of data types correctly. I’m wondering if it really makes sense to coerce
> types that are passed into native JS methods.
>
> Thoughts?
> Harbs
>
> > On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I tested the following code in Flash:
> >
> > var num:Number = undefined;
> > trace(num); //NaN
> >
> > Assigning undefined to a Number results in NaN in Flash.
> >
> > The XML signature for split() should probably look like this instead:
> >
> > split(delimiter:* = undefined, limit:Number = 0x7fffffff):Array
> >
> > It looks like String defines the limit parameter's type as Number, or this
> > coercion wouldn't be happening, so it would make sense to me for XML to use
> > the same type.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> > On 2019/02/10 11:08:14, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Found it in XML:
> >>
> >> public function
> >> split(separator:*=undefined,limit:*=undefined):Array
> >> {
> >> return s().split(separator,limit);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Becomes:
> >>
> >> XML.prototype.split = function(separator, limit) {
> >> separator = typeof separator !== 'undefined' ? separator : undefined;
> >> limit = typeof limit !== 'undefined' ? limit : undefined;
> >> return this.XML_s().split(separator, Number(limit));
> >> };
> >>
> >> Number(limit) (i.e. Number(undefined) is becoming NaN.
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On Feb 10, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The problem appears to be fd7b81f4448db0f5eb70f22208c9144549cc4806
> >>>
> >>> I’m still trying to track down exactly where it’s breaking…
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2019, at 12:11 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. It’s not ad2e39d4e1ea129cd10557b877b5ae80a12928e6
> >>>>
> >>>> I’ll try to track it down tomorrow…
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FYI: One of the compiler change in the last few days broke my app.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m not yet positive which commit it is, but I think it’s
> >>>>> ad2e39d4e1ea129cd10557b877b5ae80a12928e6
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My app works with
> >>>>> 87ed9852674f0148f8ed0da659714172979e48d1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’ll post more observations tomorrow…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
