Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02e301ccd442$e075d350$a16179f0$@davidarno.org>
References: 
 <CA+ckY6t30x1RoedjhaHojQbKQxtzwebMYoD7K1ujYsfpH1Ktvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F126E55.3000101@leichtgewicht.at>
	<4F13F250.7040501@leichtgewicht.at>
	<02e301ccd442$e075d350$a16179f0$@davidarno.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:59:39 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAAgciqo9iORJe-3v-KODJ5MAEbVGi+LUE-ejoLNOh2=x7XyA2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Namespaces in Interfaces, AVM or Compiler Problem
From: Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636b2b8a8fbc20a04b6a3f2f8

--001636b2b8a8fbc20a04b6a3f2f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> > I was just wondering if the restriction that namespaces are not allowed
> > in interfaces is there because the AVM doesn't support it or because the
> > compiler doesn't support it? Might be important as to where the bug
> > should be posted.
>
> Assuming Roland finds that the limitation is with the compiler only and not
> with the AVM, I'm struggling to understand why you view this as a bug and
> problem. An interface describes a public contract that implementing classes
> must fulfil. Why therefore would you want to specify a namespace other than
> public within an interface?


Well, I just found out that as3commons-bytecode actually has some bugs when
it comes
down to generating interfaces :) I'll have to fix them first before I can
tell you if its an AVM
or compiler issue.
But your points remains fair, I guess its normal that an interface only
declares public
members. I'm trying to think of a language that supports otherwise, but I
can't think of
any from the top of my head...

Roland

--001636b2b8a8fbc20a04b6a3f2f8--