Icon View Thread

The following is the text of the current message along with any replies.
Messages 1 to 6 of 6 total
Thread Name mangling
Wed, Mar 6 2013 8:46 PMPermanent Link

Robert Devine

Hi Tim

Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property names?

Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler available
from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier so I can
compile and minify in separate steps?

Cheers, Bob
Thu, Mar 7 2013 5:26 AMPermanent Link

Matthew Jones

Command line is something I'm keen on too, but I'd be happy with options to
compiler, or compile and minify. I imagine that the minification is dependent on
compile time information. If not, then separate is good.

/Matthew Jones/
Thu, Mar 7 2013 11:01 AMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com

Bob,

<< Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property names?
>>

I'm not quite sure what you mean.  The mangling is the compression aspect of
the compiler - if you turn off the compression, then the mangling stops.

<< Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler available
from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier so I can
compile and minify in separate steps? >>

Unfortunately, I can't do that.  The compression uses information that is
built during the compilation stage.

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com
Thu, Mar 7 2013 11:21 AMPermanent Link

Robert Devine

Hi Tim

If I have a class say TTestObject with a property called "company" then
the compiler generates:

company -> ttestobj_fcompany

I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would be
handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple Javascript
without the name changes.

> Unfortunately, I can't do that

Ok, I suspected they might be tightly linked.

Thanks, Bob


On 07/03/2013 16:01, Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
> Bob,
>
> << Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property
> names? >>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean.  The mangling is the compression
> aspect of the compiler - if you turn off the compression, then the
> mangling stops.
>
> << Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler
> available from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier
> so I can compile and minify in separate steps? >>
>
> Unfortunately, I can't do that.  The compression uses information that
> is built during the compilation stage.
>
> Tim Young
> Elevate Software
> www.elevatesoft.com
Fri, Mar 8 2013 11:24 AMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com

Bob,

<< I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would be
handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple Javascript
without the name changes. >>

What if you include two units, each with a class called TestObject, but
referenced by different units in the application ? Smile

I think what you're asking for is the ability to compile a single unit as a
..js file, and yes, this is something that can be added.  As long as the
compilation is restricted to a single unit, then it will be safe to do what
you're saying.

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com
Sat, Mar 9 2013 9:54 AMPermanent Link

Robert Devine

Hi Tim

Just realised I sent my last reply to your email. Actually, even given
the potential conflicts, I would need it to be switchable at the project
level, otherwise I'd have to write external interface units to the
generated JS!

Cheers, Bob



On 09/03/2013 10:58, Bob Devine wrote:> Hi Tim
>
>  >the ability to compile a single unit as a .js file
>
> Yes that's exactly what I'm looking for. I appreciate that this could
> cause you support headaches if allowed at the project level for
> exactly the name conflicts you mention - maybe implemented to operate
> on a single unit? The stripping of redundant code would also have to
> be switched off.
>
> Cheers, Bob
>
>
>
> On 08/03/2013 16:24, Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> << I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would
>> be handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple
>> Javascript without the name changes. >>
>>
>> What if you include two units, each with a class called TestObject, but
>> referenced by different units in the application ? Smile
>>
>> I think what you're asking for is the ability to compile a single unit
>> as a .js file, and yes, this is something that can be added.  As long as
>> the compilation is restricted to a single unit, then it will be safe to
>> do what you're saying.
>>
>> Tim Young
>> Elevate Software
>> www.elevatesoft.com
>
Image