[SVN] r7201 (ActionScript 3)

[Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient)]

On May 10, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:

> 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

I was planning on doing something like that for the syntaxes  
themselves, but the actionscript3 crew are just way too fast for me.
	I do have my own actionscript3 bundle that I use that is based on an  
earlier version of one of them. I have since upgraded it quite a bit,  
but none of it is really mergable.
		http://textmate.svn.subtlegradient.com/Bundles/Actionscript%203%20% 
5BsG%5D.tmbundle/

Yes, I do believe that we should have an overriding ecmascript scope.

source.ecmascript.javascript
source.ecmascript.javascript.jscript
source.ecmascript.javascript.prototype
source.ecmascript.actionscript.2
source.ecmascript.actionscript.3

There's a lot of stuff that would be sharable across all this stuff.

Should we include the ecmascript version too?
Some stuff applies to ecmascript 4 that doesn't apply to whatever  
ecmascript version javascript is based on.
But it isn't something that we'd want to limit to actionscript.3

Moving to this sort of arrangement should only require a global  
search and replace.
Replace
	source.js => source.ecmascript.javascript
	source.actionscript => source.actionscript.2
	source.actionscript3 => source.actionscript.3

Since source.actionscript is almost always meant to be  
source.actionscript.2, we'd default it to that to keep the same  
behavior.
Then we can go through and manually fix things that need fixing.

I have a few offsite bundles that I'd need to keep in sync with this  
change, please keep me in the loop.
Thanks

	thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg — sixteenColors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macromates.com/textmate-dev/attachments/20070510/5e98c221/attachment.html>