I filed a bug at the adobe flex JIRA site.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How strange. Clearly they forgot that you could 'fall through' to the
> end of the switch. We could work around this in our compiler, if they
> have not fixed it... You'll file a bug with them?
>
> On 2008-03-06, at 16:53 EST, Henry Minsky wrote:
>
> > When I add a break statement as the last line, it fixes it. I guess
> > I ought
> > to report this as a bug to adobe...
> >
> > switch (directive) {
> > case 'U':
> > case 'O':
> > case 'X':
> > case 'u':
> > case 'o':
> > case 'x':
> > if (value < 0) {
> > value = (- value);
> > var wid = Math.abs(parseInt(length));
> > if (isNaN(wid)) {
> > wid = Number(value).toString(radix).length;
> > }
> > var max = Math.pow(radix, wid);
> > value = max - value;
> > }
> > break;
> > }
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Henry Minsky
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> When I comment out this code block, I don't get the verifier error
> >>
> >> switch (directive) {
> >> case 'U': case 'O': case 'X':
> >> case 'u': case 'o': case 'x':
> >> if (value < 0) {
> >> value = (- value);
> >> // NOTE: [2006-11-17 ptw] Number('') -> NaN in swf, 0 in
> >> // ECMA, hence use parseInt
> >> var wid = Math.abs(parseInt(length));
> >> if (isNaN(wid)) {
> >> wid = Number(value).toString(radix).length;
> >> }
> >> var max = Math.pow(radix, wid);
> >> value = max - value;
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> mysterious...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Henry Minsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm trying to compile the LzFormatter mixin with LzText in swf9,
> >>> and am
> >>> encountering some runtime error,
> >>> the flash runtime gives a verifier error of some sort. I'm trying to
> >>> carve down the formatToString method
> >>> to locate which statement is causing trouble. It doesn't seem to
> >>> be the
> >>> inner function, which I suspected
> >>> because we saw an earlier problem with non-global functions which
> >>> were
> >>> assigned names. But our
> >>> compiler isn't giving the local function a function name, and
> >>> moving it
> >>> out to be a class method doesn't make
> >>> any difference. So I'm just doing a binary search on the method
> >>> body to
> >>> figure out what the offending code is....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Henry Minsky
> >>> Software Architect
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Henry Minsky
> >> Software Architect
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henry Minsky
> > Software Architect
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
