JC,
AS3 has no block scope.
Whenever you write 'var x' inside a method, that declaration
(effectively) gets moved to the 'top' of the method.
So at a compiler level, this:
> private function _demo():void {
> for (var i:Number = 0; i < 10;i++) {
> //evil stuff here
> }
> for (var i:Number = 0; i < 10;i++) {
> //evil stuff here
> }
> }
becomes this:
private function _demo():void
{
var i:Number;
var i:Number; /// Second definition!
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{
// Evil stuff
}
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{
// Evil stuff
}
}
And this:
> private function _demo():void {
> for (var i:int = 0; i < 10; i++)
> {
> trace (this[j]);
> }
> var j:Object = null;
> }
becomes this:
private function _demo():void
{
var j:Object;
var i:int;
for (i=0;i<10;i++)
{
trace(this[j]);
}
j=null;
}
I find it totally counterintuitive. It's a language spec thing. It was
the same in AS2 - although, interestingly, Nicolas Cannasse's MTASC
compiler added block scope and made AS2 work 'properly' - so it's not
like it's an issue at bytecode level.
Ian
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Hans
Wichman<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> does anyone know the cool rationale behind the fact that the compiler won't
> allow me to execute a completely sane piece of code such as:
>
> private function _demo():void {
> for (var i:Number = 0; i < 10;i++) {
> //evil stuff here
> }
> for (var i:Number = 0; i < 10;i++) {
> //evil stuff here
> }
> }
>
> (getting a redefined blablah variable, to which there is no workaround but
> to rename the loop variables I think)
>
> But WILL allow me to do something stupid like:
>
> private function _demo():void {
> for (var i:int = 0; i < 10; i++)
> {
> trace (this[j]);
> }
> var j:Object = null;
> }
>
>
> :)
>
> JC
> _______________________________________________
> Flashcoders mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
[email protected]
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
