Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I think this keyword rks vworkery nicely. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Roche
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:47 PM
> To: Flashcoders mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
>
> I prefer the the double underscore naming scheme to differentiate a
> local/arugment variable from a class variable. It helps when you want
to
> create get/set functions and reminds you that it is a private variable
and
> should not accessed directly.
>
> class Student
> {
>private var __name:String;
>public function Student(name:String)
>{
> __name = name;
>}
> }
Me, too (well, single underscore), but we were talking about setting
properties, not variables. You might want to set a property in a field
because it has some kind of verification or formatting functionality.
For example:
class mypackage.MyClass {
/**
* Class constructor.
*
* @param nameName for this instance.
* @see #name
*/
public function MyClass(name:String) {
this.name = name;
}
/**
* An upper-case string which is the name for this instance.
*
* Values are automatically converted to upper-case. May be
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] null}.
*/
public function get name():String {
return _name;
}
public function set name(value:String):Void {
if (value instanceof String) {
_name = value.toUpperCase();
} else {
_name = null;
}
}
private var _name:String = null;
}
―
Mike Keesey
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I don't like anything that puts arbitrary constraints on my code. Ruby on Rails has fantastic naming conventions but they have very clear benefits. Also, they use @foo for instance variable names and @@foo for class variable names. Unfortunately, they don't use braces to contain functions and classes and that makes kittens cry. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Hi Jim, Not target at you particularly; just that as I say, every couple of months the same thing rolls by. :-) Anyway; I'm just adding noise, so I'll shut up now. Ian On 11/8/06, jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, I joined the conversation late. I have a habit of not reading mail for a few days and going from the bottom of the pile up, so I will replay to a mail on this list only to go a little further up the pile to see exactly the same comment from someone else. Sorry. Jim ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Yeah, I joined the conversation late. I have a habit of not reading mail for a few days and going from the bottom of the pile up, so I will replay to a mail on this list only to go a little further up the pile to see exactly the same comment from someone else. Sorry. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: 08 November 2006 13:11 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class Sometimes I really wish the language enforced a particular way of naming methods and properties; if only because then we wouldn't have exactly the same conversation posted on this list every couple of months. :-) Ian On 11/8/06, jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I prefer having the this. On the beginning of all calls to properties in a > class so that I can easily see what is class level & what is method level. > It works without but I feel happier reading it that way. > > Jim ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
This is a recognized way of initializing a class, you can call them
different things, but if they are the same thing why give them different
names? The this keyword tells you exactly what is going on. I don't think
its bad code.
Just my opinion.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks
| BLITZ
Sent: 07 November 2006 20:05
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> I don't know if it's a remnant.
>
> You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down scope:
>
> class Student {
>
> private var name:String
>
> function Student( name:String ) {
>this.name = name;
> }
> }
That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Looks like I joined this argument a bit late, sorry for rehashing the same points. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jim Sent: 08 November 2006 13:08 To: 'Flashcoders mailing list' Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class I prefer having the this. On the beginning of all calls to properties in a class so that I can easily see what is class level & what is method level. It works without but I feel happier reading it that way. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ Sent: 07 November 2006 19:29 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class > I know I don't have to. > But I think the code is more clear that way. Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that particular use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes (prototype) and maintaining scope within them. That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place is more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who am I or anyone to take that away from you? :) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Sometimes I really wish the language enforced a particular way of naming methods and properties; if only because then we wouldn't have exactly the same conversation posted on this list every couple of months. :-) Ian On 11/8/06, jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I prefer having the this. On the beginning of all calls to properties in a class so that I can easily see what is class level & what is method level. It works without but I feel happier reading it that way. Jim ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I prefer having the this. On the beginning of all calls to properties in a class so that I can easily see what is class level & what is method level. It works without but I feel happier reading it that way. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ Sent: 07 November 2006 19:29 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class > I know I don't have to. > But I think the code is more clear that way. Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that particular use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes (prototype) and maintaining scope within them. That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place is more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who am I or anyone to take that away from you? :) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Unless
You are passing a function into a newly created object and need to
explicityle refer to the object that it is passed into.
..inside class
var myFunction:Function = new Function(){
this.a = 2;
this.b = 5;
this.c = this.a + this.b;
}
var newObj = new Object();
newObj.onLoad = myFunction;
..class continues
Then you have to use "this".
Just sayin'.
HTH
Alias
On 07/11/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I don't have to.
> But I think the code is more clear that way.
Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not
declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently
referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that particular
use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes
(prototype) and maintaining scope within them.
That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place is
more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for
those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has
their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who am
I or anyone to take that away from you? :)
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
one nice thing would be to add a '_p' (for param) suffix
function Student (name_p:String) {
this.name = name_p;
}
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:05 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I don't know if it's a remnant.
You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down
scope:
class Student {
private var name:String
function Student( name:String ) {
this.name = name;
}
}
That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
I don't think it's "bad" coding. Documentation generated from this
signature might be a bit clearer than documentation generated from a
signature where the argument was, e.g., "nameValue", since it would be
more immediately obvious that the argument "name" corresponds to the
property "name". That said, the code itself is clearer the other way.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Programming is so often
like
that.)
--
Mike Keesey
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
On 08/11/06, Mike Keesey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
> names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
I don't think it's "bad" coding. Documentation generated from this
signature might be a bit clearer than documentation generated from a
signature where the argument was, e.g., "nameValue", since it would be
more immediately obvious that the argument "name" corresponds to the
property "name". That said, the code itself is clearer the other way.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Programming is so often like
that.)
--
Mike Keesey
I prefer the the double underscore naming scheme to differentiate a
local/arugment variable from a class variable. It helps when you want to
create get/set functions and reminds you that it is a private variable and
should not accessed directly.
class Student
{
private var __name:String;
public function Student(name:String)
{
__name = name;
}
}
--
Go Dennis!
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> They (now Adobe) have pretty much done an about-face on this > issue. The ActionScript 3.0 documentation > (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/langref/ ) is excellent. Macromedia's AS docs were (in)famously bad due to what many considered to be poor examples and they also had many errors. I believe they have field developers writing the docs for AS3 now so expect the examples to be more applicable and hopefully the error count will be a lot lower, as well. > And they do use the argument name = property name syntax in constructors. There's more than one way to skin a cat. While I might find that cutting from the base of the neck down the back to the base of the tail to be the best way, others might prefer cutting along the belly better because the stitching will be less visible once you put the skin back together even though cutting from the belly often results in a mess unless you're careful. Different strokes for different folks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I shouldn't have used the term "bad" to describe these practices and for that I apologize. My eyes see all those extra "this" references as clutter and some people's eyes see them as useful pointers. I don't use document writing programs like AsDoc or Jdoc so the concerns of people who do are foreign to me. I wasn't even aware of their constraints in this regard and so to automatically declare them as "bad" was my bad. :) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> > I don't know if it's a remnant.
> >
> > You may be doing property initialization and need to nail
> down scope:
> >
> > class Student {
> >
> > private var name:String
> >
> > function Student( name:String ) {
> >this.name = name;
> > }
> > }
>
> That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
> names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
Sorry, but I completly disagree. I think this is best practice.
The usage of this is obsolete in many cases but with "this" it is clear that
it is a member variable.
I also use ClassName.staticVarName to ensure that it is a static variable.
This kind of coding will be completly obsolute if IDEs support semantic
syntax highlighting to show difference between member- static and local
variables like it is already supported by the latest JDT.
Cheers,
Sönke
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
They (now Adobe) have pretty much done an about-face on this issue. The ActionScript 3.0 documentation (http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/langref/ ) is excellent. And they do use the argument name = property name syntax in constructors. For example, http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/langref/Error.html Error(message:String = "", id:int = 0) Creates a new Error object. (Well, the "id" argument corresponds to the "errorID" property--so I guess they went both ways on this one!) ― Mike Keesey > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:34 PM > To: Flashcoders mailing list > Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class > > > Pretty much. You either muddy up your code or your docs. > > I opt to muddy up docs over code, just like Macromedia. ;) > ___ > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> Pretty much. You either muddy up your code or your docs. I opt to muddy up docs over code, just like Macromedia. ;) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I don't think it's "bad" coding. Documentation generated from this
signature might be a bit clearer than documentation generated from a
signature where the argument was, e.g., "nameValue", since it would be
more immediately obvious that the argument "name" corresponds to the
property "name". That said, the code itself is clearer the other way.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Programming is so often like
that.)
Pretty much. You either muddy up your code or your docs. This is probably
why this kind of code is prevalent in Java. They've had strong doc tools
nearly from the beginning.
Scott
On 11/7/06, Mike Keesey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:05 PM
> To: Flashcoders mailing list
> Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
>
> > I don't know if it's a remnant.
> >
> > You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down
scope:
> >
> > class Student {
> >
> > private var name:String
> >
> > function Student( name:String ) {
> >this.name = name;
> > }
> > }
>
> That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
> names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
I don't think it's "bad" coding. Documentation generated from this
signature might be a bit clearer than documentation generated from a
signature where the argument was, e.g., "nameValue", since it would be
more immediately obvious that the argument "name" corresponds to the
property "name". That said, the code itself is clearer the other way.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Programming is so often like
that.)
--
Mike Keesey
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
--
: : ) Scott
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks | BLITZ
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:05 PM
> To: Flashcoders mailing list
> Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
>
> > I don't know if it's a remnant.
> >
> > You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down
scope:
> >
> > class Student {
> >
> > private var name:String
> >
> > function Student( name:String ) {
> >this.name = name;
> > }
> > }
>
> That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
> names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
I don't think it's "bad" coding. Documentation generated from this
signature might be a bit clearer than documentation generated from a
signature where the argument was, e.g., "nameValue", since it would be
more immediately obvious that the argument "name" corresponds to the
property "name". That said, the code itself is clearer the other way.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Programming is so often like
that.)
--
Mike Keesey
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
That's one instance where I use it; and also (of course) if you have to
pass "this" as an argument (e.g., to Delegate.create). In a few cases in
ActionScript 2.0 it's needed to disambiguate top-level and MovieClip
functions that have the same name. (Thankfully, they fixed this in
AS3.0.) Other than that, I think it tends to clutter things up.
But that's just my take.
―
Mike Keesey
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of slangeberg
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: Flashcoders mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
>
> I don't know if it's a remnant.
>
> You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down scope:
>
> class Student {
>
> private var name:String
>
> function Student( name:String ) {
>this.name = name;
> }
> }
>
> -Scott
>
> On 11/7/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I know I don't have to.
> > > But I think the code is more clear that way.
> >
> > Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not
> > declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently
> > referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that
particular
> > use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes
> > (prototype) and maintaining scope within them.
> >
> > That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place
is
> > more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for
> > those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has
> > their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who
am
> > I or anyone to take that away from you? :)
> > ___
> > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> > To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
> >
> > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
> > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
> > http://www.figleaf.com
> > http://training.figleaf.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> : : ) Scott
> ___
> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
>
> Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
> Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
> http://www.figleaf.com
> http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> I don't know if it's a remnant.
>
> You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down scope:
>
> class Student {
>
> private var name:String
>
> function Student( name:String ) {
>this.name = name;
> }
> }
That's just bad coding. Don't use class variable names as argument
names. It's not like you don't have a choice about it. ;)
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I don't know if it's a remnant.
You may be doing property initialization and need to nail down scope:
class Student {
private var name:String
function Student( name:String ) {
this.name = name;
}
}
-Scott
On 11/7/06, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I don't have to.
> But I think the code is more clear that way.
Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not
declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently
referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that particular
use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes
(prototype) and maintaining scope within them.
That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place is
more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for
those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has
their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who am
I or anyone to take that away from you? :)
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
--
: : ) Scott
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
> I know I don't have to. > But I think the code is more clear that way. Classes will not compile if you try to access variables that are not declared in the class. So by accessing a variable, it is inherently referring to "this" because it absolutely must be, thus that particular use of "this" is redundant and a remnant of the days of AS1 classes (prototype) and maintaining scope within them. That's not to say "this" doesn't have its place, but since its place is more refined now, I find it's more important to reserve its use for those times so it stands out that much more. However, everyone has their own style and if using "this" gives you warm fuzzies, then who am I or anyone to take that away from you? :) ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
I know I don't have to. But I think the code is more clear that way. Thanks, JulianG Rich Rodecker wrote: you know you dont have to reference 'this' inside the class, right? :D ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Project 3:16 - For Client so loved the work, that he told his one and only Developer, that whosoever listens to him shall not finish, but have eternal changes. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
Now you've got it!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Rich Rodecker
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 4:28 PM
> To: Flashcoders mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
>
> you know you dont have to reference 'this' inside the class,
> right? :D
>
>
>
>
> On 11/6/06, JulianG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > // ActionScript 2.0
> >
> > class Freelancer extends Person {
> >
> > var available_time:Number; // hours per day
> >
> > // Constructor
> > function Freelancer( hs:Number ){
> > this.available_time = hs;
> > }
> >
> > function onIdle(){
> > if( this.available_time > 2 ){
> > this.workWithPixeltoys();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > function workWithPixeltoys(){
> > getURL("mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
> > }
> >
> > }
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Freelancer Class
you know you dont have to reference 'this' inside the class, right? :D
On 11/6/06, JulianG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
// ActionScript 2.0
class Freelancer extends Person {
var available_time:Number; // hours per day
// Constructor
function Freelancer( hs:Number ){
this.available_time = hs;
}
function onIdle(){
if( this.available_time > 2 ){
this.workWithPixeltoys();
}
}
function workWithPixeltoys(){
getURL("mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]");
}
}
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
