flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Roland Cabresos <j.cabre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Language features
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:11:33 GMT
Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML.
This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot and
most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a framework for
Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I think sticking with
Flex as the name for AS with new language features. Flex built a markup
language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript?




On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>wrote:

> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be interesting
> to see
> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately
> since
> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have
> indicated
> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I suppose.
> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going to be
> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3?
>
> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to the
> language?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as> wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to support
> > Vector...  I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember them
> > saying it was coming...
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <tangent@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would bring
> the
> > > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to
> > > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>.
> > >
> > > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would complete
> the
> > > whole picture.  Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
> > > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
> > >
> > > Tangent
> > >
> > > http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > Hi Gordon,
> > >
> > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
> > > > easy
> > >
> > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be
> welcomed
> > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that
> contain
> > > static members only.
> > >
> > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of people
> who
> > > wait for a long time for these features.
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > From: Gordon Smith
> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Language features
> > >
> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
> > easy.
> > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder but
> > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth
> > considering
> > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a
> > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and strongly-typed
> > fixed
> > > arrays (i.e., int[]).
> > >
> > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we can't
> > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making any
> > > modifications to the old compiler.
> > >
> > > - Gordon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language features
> > >
> > > +1 Nick
> > >
> > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the
> > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public to
> > > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but
> > didn't
> > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone
> > better
> > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ?
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > From: Nick Collins
> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Language features
> > >
> > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding
> some
> > > additional language features to our compiler?
> > >
> > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as
> > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me
> that
> > at
> > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler?
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Roland
>
> --
> Roland Zwaga
> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>
> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
> http://www.stackandheap.com
>
> http://zwaga.blogspot.com
> http://www.springactionscript.org
> http://www.as3commons.org
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message