LiveDocs Comments - flash - 9.0 - main - 00000045.html

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

adbe_paul — 2008-09-12T12:11:42

@Tahereh-Sh:

No, if a class is not dynamic you cannot add properties to instances at run time. (Of course, if ClassExtender actually includes a "someString" property then it would work.)

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

Tahereh-Shahidi — 2008-09-11T03:39:38

While ClassExtender class is not a dynamic class is it possible to
assign a value to someString property of its instance(myClass)
at run-time?

myClass.someString = "hello";

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

Joe ... Ward — 2008-08-08T11:12:13

An expicit cast is certainly a practical way of describing the "as" operator.

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

Joe ... Ward — 2008-08-07T11:30:42

Yes, instanceOf should be avoided in deference to the is operator.

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

Todays Past — 2008-08-01T13:29:20

in the text you state "but in ActionScript 3.0 the instanceof operator should not be used to test for data type membership. "

This sounds like instanceof should be used for something else.

However at compile time, using instanceof generates an error stating that its been "deprecated." Doesn't this imply that instance of should be avoided completely?

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

PM 77-1 — 2008-07-30T08:55:48

Why "as" is not described as explicit casting?

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

adbe_paul — 2007-10-02T15:07:05

typeof isn't included here because it's a legacy concept inherited from previous versions of ActionScript. For any of the reasons you'd use typeof(), you can use one of the approaches described here instead.

One key reason for this is that typeof() only has a very limited set of potential results: string, array, number, etc. Most things, especially in ActionScript 3.0 where there are so many more types, would simply be identified as "object" which isn't very useful in determining what it really is.

flash/9.0/main/00000045.html

2007-10-01T07:13:16

I'm missing typeof here