[Laszlo-dev] declaring types for named views/nodes

[Henry Minsky]

Yeah, only I realized it would be a little spotty because we only compile
custom classes for views that have methods, so for the views that do not
have any methods, we're still depending on
using dynamically added properties to point to the named child views, so
those don't get the benefit of type declaration. Which might confuse people
who would sometimes get type checking on their
references to child nodes and sometimes not.



On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM, P T Withington <ptw at laszlosystems.com>wrote:

> Seems like a good idea, assuming you can compute the information without
> having to add another pass to the compiler...
>
>
> On 2009-04-06, at 14:54EDT, Henry Minsky wrote:
>
>  Sorry, got cut off in mid message
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Henry Minsky <hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  I was looking at declaring types for global named views, and it occurred
>>> to
>>> me that we could do this for local names as well,e.g.,
>>>
>>> <view>
>>>  <view name="baz" onclick="bar.dosomething()"/>
>>>  <view name="bar">
>>>        <method name="dosomething"> ... </method>
>>>
>>>     </view>
>>   </view>
>>
>> So in this case, the "bar" and "baz" views actually get custom anonymous
>> classes created
>> for them , and it would improve compile time error checking if the vars
>> "baz" and "bar" were
>> declared with  type being the actual class they will be bound to.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Henry Minsky
>>> Software Architect
>>> hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Henry Minsky
>> Software Architect
>> hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
hminsky at laszlosystems.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/attachments/20090406/73c46445/attachment.html