[haXe] best strategy to port an existing js library

[Franco Ponticelli]

I lose type checking only in the wrapping and since normally it is used just
once I don't think it is that bad. Also this way the code (both in js and
haxe) is shorter ;-)

On Dec 7, 2007 4:30 PM, Ian <bcposn802 at sneakemail.com> wrote:

> wow. that wasn't at all what I was thinking, but I prefer this.  you
> lose type checking, but you eliminate the wrapper.  my thought was:
>
> // js library (same)
> function niceAlert(txt) {
>  alert("### " + txt + " ###");
> }
>
> // js wrapper
> function JsWrapper() {
>  this.callNiceAlert = niceAlert;
> }
>
> // haxe code
> extern class JsWrapper {
>    public function new():Void;
>    public function callNiceAlert():Void;
> }
> class Main
> {
>    public static function main() {
>      var wrapper = new JsWrapper();
>      wrapper.callNiceAlert("hello to you");
>    }
> }
>
> -ianxm
>
> Franco Ponticelli franco.ponticelli-at-gmail.com |haxe| wrote:
> > Yes, I think you are correct. The only two options are depicted in the
> > example below... any other idea?
> >
> > // js library
> > function niceAlert(txt) {
> >   alert("### " + txt + " ###");
> > }
> >
> > // haxe code
> > class Main {
> >     public static function main() {
> >     Main.msg("hello to you");
> >     Main.msg2("goodbye");
> >     }
> >
> >   public static var msg : String -> Void = untyped niceAlert;
> >
> >   public static function msg2(s : String) {
> >     untyped niceAlert(s);
> >   }
> > }
> >
> > Franco.
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2007 3:42 PM, Ian <bcposn802 at sneakemail.com
> > <mailto:bcposn802 at sneakemail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     how would you call a javascript function from haXe?  It seems like
> >     extern only works with classes.
> >     I guess I could wrap the javascript functions in a javascript class.
> >
> >     -ianxm
> >
> >     Franco Ponticelli franco.ponticelli-at-gmail.com
> >     <http://franco.ponticelli-at-gmail.com> |haxe| wrote:
> >     > There is no loader and I doubt you need one since you can
> >     include your
> >     > JS library just before the haXe generated file.
> >     > About wrapping you can use both extern or typedef depending on
> what
> >     > you are implementing.
> >     > In your case the extern could be the right solution.
> >     >
> >     > extern HelloClass {
> >     >   public function new() : Void;
> >     >   public function showText() : String;
> >     > }
> >     >
> >     > Pay attention to the case of fields that in haXe must start with a
> >     > lower case letter. This can be origin to incompabilities.
> >     >
> >     > Regards,
> >     > Franco.
> >     >
> >     > On Dec 7, 2007 11:00 AM, picnic < bitvolt at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:bitvolt at gmail.com>
> >     > <mailto:bitvolt at gmail.com <mailto:bitvolt at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     hi
> >     >     what is best strategy to port an existing js library? How is
> >     >     encapsulation done, e.g.  for an js class in a separate file:
> >     >
> >     >     -------------HelloClass.js------------------
> >     >     function HelloClass(){
> >     >        var m_text = "Hello World";
> >     >        this.ShowText = DisplayText;
> >     >       function DisplayText(){
> >     >            alert( m_text );
> >     >            return;}}
> >     >     --------------------------------------------------
> >     >
> >     >     i guess there should be some kind of a loader function in
> >     haxe.js
> >     >
> >     >     thanks
> >     >     picnic
> >     >
> >     >     --
> >     >     haXe - an open source web programming language
> >     >     http://haxe.org
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     haXe - an open source web programming language
> >     http://haxe.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/attachments/20071207/d0084ba1/attachment.htm