Hi, I think that we all agree in most of the things, and although we're discussing some particularities on how to solve, my opinion is that those particularities can be solved after merging Language improvements branch. We all agree we need this Vector (and other improvements in this branch)?. So, after that merge folks wanting to improve, let's say, Vector(for example) even more with new choices can do that without problem and will make it even better.
Are we ok with that? El mar., 28 may. 2019 a las 11:07, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > On May 28, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> "I personally have never used length checking in Vector. Nor was runtime > >> type checking on Vectors important to me. " > > length checking is automatic in flash. I don't know that you 'use' it... > it > > is just there. > > True. What I meant is that I never used fixed length Vectors. > > > In javascript I expect it would most often be switched off in all release > > builds, but having it on by default provides another check of something > > that could provide a vital clue to help people figuring out problems in > > code. > > So far each 'stronger typing' feature added in the last few months has > > revealed potential issues or - most often - bad code that was working > when > > it should not > > Good points, and one that argues for the ability to have these checks > while debugging and have the run-time code removed on release. > > > One thing about the mxml stuff is that it gets processed in a way that is > > untyped. > > > Agree. I do wish there was some way for MXML to be output “better” where > minified vars could “just work” and types could be better inferred from the > MXML files. -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
