[Laszlo-dev] LZX syntax for JS2 declarations
temkin at laszlosystems.com
Wed Feb 13 15:09:58 PST 2008
Your syntax proposals look good to me -- as expected.
I do think it's critical that users be able to create sealed classes
-- that is, assuming that sealed classes do in fact deliver a real
We have compute-intensive code in "user" classes all over the place in
the apps we're building. Yes, an optimized LFC will be helpful. But it
won't deliver the benefit we are hoping to see for our application
This may or may not be the case for others' apps.
On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:42 PM, P T Withington wrote:
> We don't have a design for how these things will be represented in
> LZX. We're open to suggestions. Some straw proposals below:
> On 2008-02-13, at 16:57 EST, David Temkin wrote:
>> Some questions regarding classes and methods declared in LZX once
>> JS2 support is complete (well, complete enough for the purposes of
>> an initial release supporting the SWF9 runtime target).
>> 1) How do method declarations look like when the parameters are
> <method name="foo" args="arg1:type1, arg2:type2, arg3:type3 =
> default3, ...">
> So, just what you would type in the ()'s of a function in JS2. We
> have a plan for supporting this in JS1 runtimes as well: http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-5273
>> 2) How do method declarations looks like when the return value is
> <method ... return="type">
>> 3) How are sealed classes declared in LZX?
> Probably not at all initially. There are too many dynamic things
> that are done in user classes. The current plan is that the
> internal LFC classes will all be sealed, and there will be dynamic
> subclasses at the API for classes that can be extended in user code.
> Eventually, we may be able to tune the user class implementation
> that it can be sealed, in which case, _I_ would like that to be the
> default, and there be a modifier for keeping it dynamic:
>> And other questions of this sort that I've forgotten....
> Can't think of any right now...
More information about the Laszlo-dev