Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-asjs_jsonly #2204

See

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

Yes, the right hand side will be an Object (literal or not). The left hand side is evaluated to be a type. Then there is a test to see if the two match. It isn't simple equality since you have to compare subtypes and interfaces, but this proposal adds one more test if there isn't a match.

AS3 Language Features

I very much would like for AS3 to get an upgrade with features. That applies to improvements I the compiler output as well as truly new features in the language. I’ve started some discussion with Josh on the topic, and we started a Google doc to use to help figure out how we can incrementally

Board Report

I was planning on doing the board report on Saturday night and almost a full week went by since then… :-( I just copied the template to the wiki, but it’s really late for me. I’ll try to fill it in tomorrow, but if anyone has the time to fill in info, it would be much appreciated. Thanks,

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

OK, but shouldn’t the right-hand side be resolved into a literal Object? When an “external type” is expected and it’s an Object, why can’t there be a lazy evaluation of the Object to see if it matches the required signature of the external dynamic type? That seems like it would not have any

Re: Jewel alert.as

You mean this: /** * constructor. * * * https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.css "> * https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.js "> * * * @langversion 3.0 *

Using em vs px (was. Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing)

Hi Mark, renaming this since I thing is very different topic. I must say that I don't understand completely what you are trying to share, But I'm completely open to make changes from px to em or viceversa if we get a better result. So first: El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark

Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing

Hi Mark, thanks for joining to the discussion: El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark J () escribió: > > Back on topic, I was able to avoid using max size declarations by adding > in CSS to utilize the flex-box CSS alignments to fill and distribute sizes. > Very interesting,

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Alex. I think we're on the right track here. > IMO, having more restrictive rules for AS is "ok" if we can make it PAYG, > which it sort of is. You should be able to use plain objects if you don't > want Closure's minification. I think you can set your

Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing

Hi Alex, El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 19:22, Alex Harui () escribió > > I know Flex users are used to having these properties, and the emulation > components have them for backward compatibility (plus emulation isn't > focused on code-size) but I was thinking that in almost all other cases, >

Jewel alert.as

The 0.9.4 release has a Alert.as [1] file on the ASDOC comment for the constructor has a cloudflare referenced CSS. Is a third party direct reference supposed to be in there? [1] projects/Jewel/src/main/royale/jewel/Alert.as -Mark K

RE: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing

I have a side question on this topic of size and size properties. I'm just finishing up a 10 day test conversion of a small application interface and was surprised to see us use PX a lot in the layout when it's on the JS side of things. I was specifically using the jewel set to test

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

@Josh: I'm going to try to answer both of your posts in this one reply. IMO, having more restrictive rules for AS is "ok" if we can make it PAYG, which it sort of is. You should be able to use plain objects if you don't want Closure's minification. I think you can set your compiler options

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

Note: I've read Josh's more recent posts and I think he's heading towards the right answer so I will respond there separately, but wanted to address your technical questions for the record. Again, I am not a compiler/language expert. I'm just going with my mental model based on working on

Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing

Hi Carlos, As you noted, there is code-size/PAYG impact to adding more and more sizing/measurement properties. After you add min-width/max-width someone will then want explicitMinWidth and so-on. Flex has quite a few of these properties. I know Flex users are used to having these properties,

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

> 3) That other classes linked into your final JS file can dictate what keys > are renamed Again, we're seeing Closure's advanced renaming causing trouble and making us jump through hoops. We've already seen that it makes JSON difficult to use, and Harbs needed a new compiler option added so

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

This feels very wrong to me. Having to implement an interface or create a conversion function to pass parameters to native JS APIs from ActionScript is going to be a massively, enormously, gigantic headache for everyone. Developers aren't going to want to write boilerplate to use native APIs.

Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing

Hi, while working with Royale I'm finding that we need some things for in UIBase for sizing from AS3/MXML: - Set min-width - Set max-width - Manage width = NaN (in CSS this is set style to "initial") (same for height) I can create a CSS selector and apply it to the component. But this seems

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

I don’t know what you mean here. My proposal would not change anything for literals which are typed as Object. I’m proposing that literals that are declared as “typdefed” types would be checked against the typedefs. (I like the use of “typedef” as Haxe does rather than “interface” to avoid

RE: BevelFilter

Thanks, Alex and Om. Will pick this up on Sunday. From: OmPrakash Muppirala Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:07:15 PM To: dev@royale.apache.org Subject: Re: BevelFilter It seems like using the feConvolveMatrix lets you achieve bevel (and other kinds of

Re: Official Hack Proposal (was Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fix implicit coercion error)

Let me try to respond to everyone in this one post: @Josh: I don't think we would ever disallow the use of Object literals in Royale. But I expect there to be more and more reasons to avoid using them over time. Already we know that: 1) The IDE's don't really know what to code-hint when you