Each of these errors is kind of interesting:

badtzmaru:swf9 hqm$ lzc --runtime=swf9 checkbox.lzx
Compiling: checkbox.lzx to checkbox.lzr=swf9.swf
writing script to /tmp/lzx-script.js
Executing compiler: (cd /tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150; /Users/hqm/flex3/bin/mxmlc
-compiler.show-actionscript-warnings=false
-compiler.source-path+=/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150 -debug=true -output
/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/app.swf -default-size 800 600
-library-path+=/Users/hqm/openlaszlo/trunk4/lps/includes/lfc/LFC9.swc
/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/LzApplication.as)
compiler output:
Loading configuration file
/Users/hqm/openlaszlo/adobe/trunk/frameworks/flex-config.xml

ERRORS:
Compiler error: at 20 [/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/$lzc$class_multistatebutton.as:
19]: Error: A conflict exists with inherited definition LzView.frame in
namespace public.

}var frame;var onstatenum;var onstatelength;
     ^

Hmm,  I wonder why 'frame' is being redeclared in multistatebutton, when
LzView declares it already (it's in the lfc.lzx schema, so the compiler
should know about it)

Compiler error: at [/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/$lzc$class_checkbox.as: 48]:
Error: Overriding a function that is not marked for override.

function $lzc$set_value (value) {

I guess we have to make the code that emits setter functions check if it
needs to add a "override" keyword.
         ^

Compiler error: at [/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/$lzc$class_checkbox.as: 94]:
Error: A conflict exists with inherited definition
$lzc$class_baseformitem.$delegates in namespace public.



}var $delegates;LzNode.mergeAttributes({$delegates: ["onclick",
"$lzc$handle_onclick$$lz$2Fcheckbox$2Elzx_47_33_$m13", null], clickable:
true, pixellock: true, text_y: new LzConstraintExpr("$lzc$bind_text_y",
"$lzc$dependencies_text_y"), value: false},
$lzc$class_checkbox.attributes);}

I wonder why the compiler is declaring $delegates on the class, and on it's
superclass?
     ^

Compiler error: at [/tmp/lzswf9/lzgen55150/$lzc$class_basecomponent.as:
230]: Error: Incompatible override.

override function destroy () {
                   ^

This is because we're not matching the destroy() method signature because
of  the secret "recursiveCall" arg that LzNode.destroy uses

function destroy( recursiveCall = null){



FAIL: compiler returned 4




-- 
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to