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
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();
] 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
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
-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
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
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.
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
-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
.
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
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:
] 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
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
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
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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
