At 4/10/14 10:23 AM, Sam wrote:
At 4/10/14 10:16 AM, GeoKureli wrote:
can you still use traditional for loops?
That is the traditional for loop. It feels very "psuedo-code"-y, but at the same time, I quite like it.
Also, this is fucking stupid
switch (value) {
case 1:
trace ("Equal to 1");
default:
trace ("Not equal to 1");
}
Why is this stupid?
switches without breaks, what if several groups of values have the same outcome?
apart from your egyptian braces </3
osnap
One thing that I think is a bad design choice is the omission of the protected keyword, and the change of the private keyword to be what protected means in AS3.
very stupid
additionally, these made me throw up:
Std.is (vehicle, Car)
why not just make a it a damn operator?
var car:Car = cast vehicle;
why change it at all.
public var x (get, set):Float;
function get_x ():Float { return _x; }
function set_x (value:Float):Float { return _x = value; }
I'm half for this and half against it, but why the underscore in the function name?
basically, if ou have the ability to change AS3 to look like this, why not just make it look like C#?
Good points:
function hello (msg:String):Void {}
var type:String->Void = hello;
that's just genius! maybe even better than C# delegates.
var table = new Map<String,Int> ();
wanted this for so long
I heard Haxe has some crazy for loop style inline array declaration, so I can create a for loop with ordered multiples of 2 up to 100. is that a thing?