Of course, I always forger about the "dynamic" keyword :)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Bjorn Schultheiss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe you can do this
>
> class Foo
> {
> var bar:Function;
> }
>
> //somewhere outside the class
>
> function myfunction():void {trace('hi')};
>
>
> var foo:Foo = new Foo;
> foo.bar = myfunction;
>
> if you have
> class Foo
> {
> function bar():void {}
> }
>
> then you must override.
>
> But you have more flexibility if Foo is defined as a Dynamic Class..
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "Josh
> McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for that info.
> >
> > I'm not really sure about how things work internally, besides some vague
> > references to "traits" the documentation doesn't help too much - can you
> > redefine member methods on a particular instance?
> >
> > What I mean is this:
> >
> > var foo : Foo = new Foo();
> > foo.bar(); // Does something
> > foo.bar = function() : void { doOtherStuff() };
> > foo.bar(); // Does something else
> >
> > -J
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Gordon Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think there is additional overhead in calling an anonymous
> function
> > > (i.e., your 'var foo:Function = ' case).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And I don't think that the rules for what 'this' is, when the function
> > > executes, are the same.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gordon Smith
> > >
> > > Adobe Flex SDK Team
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>] *On
> > > Behalf Of *Josh McDonald
> > > *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2008 4:58 PM
> > > *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Advanced(?) Actionscript question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course you're right, my syntax was dodgey. I meant:
> > >
> > > var foo : Function = function():* {};
> > >
> > > But besides that, my questions still stand ;-)
> > >
> > > -J
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Bjorn Schultheiss <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the second version your initializing foo as an object.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm pretty certain you cant do,
> > >
> > > var foo:Function = {trace('foo')}
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29/04/2008, at 9:37 AM, Josh McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > what's the difference (if it exists) between:
> > >
> > > public function foo() : * {}
> > >
> > > and:
> > >
> > > public var foo : Function = {};
> > >
> > > Does it exist? I assume you can call Bar.foo() in both cases, and foo
> > > shows up as a variable in describeType() in the second instance?
> Are there
> > > other details I'm not aware of?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > -J
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
> thee."
> > >
> > > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > > :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
> thee."
> > >
> > > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > > :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
> thee."
> >
> > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
--
"Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
