[SVN] r7201 (ActionScript 3)

[Charilaos Skiadas]

On May 10, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Ale Muñoz wrote:

>
> On 10/05/2007, at 15:59, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
>
>> isn't actionscript an extension of javascript?
>
>
> Not really.
>
> ActionScript 1.0 was based in JavaScript and ECMAScript 3. AS 2.0  
> was based on ECMAScript 4. None of them comply with the full spec.
>
> AS 3.0 is (as far as I know) fully compliant with ECMAScript 4.
>
> But none of them *are* JavaScript.
>
> I totally agree that some commands (mostly snippets and code  
> writing stuff) could be shared, but I don't see the point of making  
> AS use a source.js scope, really...
>
> Anyways, it's just MHO...

Perhaps we need a source.ecmascript scope then, that the others would  
inherit from....

As an example of what I am thinking: Could a snippet for creating a  
basic function definition be the same for javascript and  
actionscript? If so, there is no reason to duplicate such a command.

Making the scope source.js does not mean that we must inherit the  
entire javascript syntax coloring. In fact we don't need to inherit  
any of it. The question is whether commands and snippets could  
perhaps be shared between the two languages.
Or perhaps also some minimal part of a language grammar could be  
formed, called ECMAScript or something, and then be inherited by both  
javascript and actionscript.

But since I don't know any of the particulars of actionscript, I will  
keep out of it from now on ;). Just wanted to make it clear that  
using source.js as the first part of the scope name does not  
necessarily commit you as much as one would at first think of.

> --
> Ale Muñoz
> http://sofanaranja.com
> http://bomberstudios.com

Haris Skiadas
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Hanover College