Not knowing exactly what the method signature for 'fn_hello' is makes it a
little uncertain to advise, but it seems like you might want this
super.fn_hello.apply(this,[index].concat(args))
instead of
super.fn_hello.apply(index,[this].concat(args))
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 7:00 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m not clear on what you’re trying to do.
>
> Given a variable of an array arr = [1,2,3]:
>
> If you call the function directly (i.e. fn_fooBisarr)), the full array
> will be the first argument of the function, so you’ll get
> fn_fooBis([1,2,3]);
> If you call the function using. fn_fooBis.apply(thisArg,arr), that’s the
> same as calling: fn_fooBis(1,2,3) (thisArg can be the this context you want
> or null if you don’t care about the “this" context)
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Dec 1, 2024, at 4:56 PM, Maria Jose Esteve <mjest...@iest.com> wrote:
> >
> > When I have to pass the "args" to a function without super, it doesn't
> allow me to use .apply(this,args) in all cases and if I pass them directly
> the recursive increment occurs again... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh
> >
> > I've looked at the SDK code and it's not clear to me how I can do it.
> > For example:
> > protected function fn_foo( ... args){
> > // fn_fooBis.apply(this, args) // not working
> > fn_fooBis(args);
> > }
> > Private function fn_fooBis(... args):void{
> > trace( args); // two nestings.
> > }
> >
> > Hiedra
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Maria Jose Esteve <mjest...@iest.com>
> > Enviado el: domingo, 1 de diciembre de 2024 15:12
> > Para: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Asunto: RE: Parameters of type paramArray
> >
> > Perfect Josh, thanks.
> >
> > When the paramArray is, for example, the second parameter, what would
> that look like?
> > For example:
> > override protected function fn_hello(index:int, ... args){
> > // These are the tests I have done but none of them work for me
> > super.fn_hello.apply(index,args);
> > super.fn_hello.apply(index,[this].concat(args)); // Add "this"
> and, for example, index 0 is not the first parameter of args but "this" (as
> expected)} ,,,
> >
> > Hiedra
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> Enviado el: viernes, 29 de
> noviembre de 2024 18:14
> > Para: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Asunto: Re: Parameters of type paramArray
> >
> > I think that this should do what you want:
> >
> > super.reevalAccesControl.apply(this, args);
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 7:26 AM Maria Jose Esteve <mjest...@iest.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, I've always faced this problem, but I don't know how to give a
> >> definitive solution.
> >> Parameters of type paramarray increase their nesting from one call to
> >> another, for example:
> >>
> >> Public class ControllerFirst extends ControllerBase {
> >> ...
> >> private function fnmove():void{
> >> var foo:String = "hello";
> >> reevalAccessControl(foo);
> >> }
> >> ...
> >> override protected function reevalAccessControl(... args):void{
> >> // In the first call, from fnmove "arguments" you have
> >> an element [0] with a value "hello"
> >> super.reevalAccesControl(args);
> >> ...
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> Public class ControllerBase
> >> {
> >> ...
> >> protected function reevalAccessControl(... args):void{
> >> // When this function is called from ControllerFirst
> >> arguments has an element [0] but this element in turn is an array of 1
> >> element and the value "hello" is found in args[0][0] on a second level
> >> ...
> >> }
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> I don't know if I have explained myself... I understand why it happens
> >> but I wonder if there is a way to pass this type of arguments so that
> >> the nesting level 0 is respected and a level is not added for each call.
> >>
> >> Thx.
> >> Hiedra
> >>
> >>
>
>
