flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: git commit: [flex-falcon] [refs/heads/develop] - compiler-jx: Added -js-default-initializers option to force uninitialized variables to default to the same values in JS as they do in SWF.
Date Tue, 01 Aug 2017 22:49:48 GMT
I’d prefer if we could somehow get the best of both worlds.

Sorry Harbs, but I don't get it. I think the agreement is already to 'have
the best of both worlds'.
The issue is what the default should be. I know that you don't think you
could have both behaviours as the default :).

If we take away personal preferences, and think in terms of where
developers will be coming from for FlexJS, and if we assume that this
includes a large proportion of people who are already familiar with
actionscript and therefore have expectations based on that familiarity,
then I don't see how having default behaviour that is different to those
expectations will be helpful to the uptake in use of flexjs.

If it is not the case then we need to have documentation that supports the
divergence from official actionscript language documentation elsewhere, and
the hope that new users will read it as the authoritative source.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’d prefer if we could somehow get the best of both worlds.
> I don’t see a solution to that dilemma at the moment, but maybe we’ll come
> up with something...
> Harbs
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 1:24 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. If you see value in it, then we definitely shouldn't
> > remove it as an option. However, for compatibility with the existing
> > language, I'd prefer to see initialization be the default instead.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Any maybe vice versa... ;-p
> >>
> >> Alex was planning on looking into whether he can solve the boolean
> >> problem, so let’s hold off until he does that.
> >>
> >> I think comparing two booleans is pretty rare although I have already
> run
> >> into if(myBool == false) not working. Changing it to if(!myBool) was
> simple
> >> enough, but I do agree with you that it’s currently broken.
> >>
> >> For now, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on initializing
> values.
> >> I’ve seen a lot of value in leaving them undefined. It makes it really
> >> clear while debugging whether the value has been set or not.
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I'll convince others eventually.
> >>
> >>

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