Either I’m going slightly mad or casting using the “as” keyword works differently to the old way of casting.
Here’s some code to illustrate:
showFormItem = (((e.target as CheckBox).selected as String) == _local.displayTriggerValue[i]) ? true : falseNow this gives a different result to:
showFormItem = (String((e.target as CheckBox).selected) == _local.displayTriggerValue[i]) ? true : false
WTF?!
I’m pretty sure I’ve got my brackets in the correct spot.
Yhelp!
Yeah, the “as” operator yields null if the cast fails, the regular cast yields an error. It’s in the docs.
Constructor casting in some cases also involves a conversion function. For example, with String, String() is actually a conversion function - it’s doing more than casting. It will take a value and make it a string (usually by invoking the object’s toString() method).
@senocular - thanks for the clarification on that. I am definitely after the conversion in this instance, and didn’t realise that the “as” operator wasn’t doing that for me.
@Theo - hey, nice to see you on my little patch of turf and not in the Mate/asfusion forums ;-)
Possibly as a reminder to myself rather than an attempt to illuminate those of you out there who have a solid grasp of as3 - defining a new Array with one numeric argument in the constructor will create an array with the specified number of empty placeholder elements. Yup, took me another 5 minutes there to figure out that Array’s are behaving as they’re meant to, I’m just having an off syntactical day! So if you want to add the number 1 to an new array do so like this
And please don’t ask why I even have to do this…
Why not just use the Use Array literals [] directly:
var myArray:Array = [ 1 ];
btw it’s actually recommended by Adobe also:
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Coding Conventions
Do this:
[]
Not this:
new Array()
And this:
[ 1, 2, 3 ]
Not this:
new Array(1, 2, 3)
Ahhh, true dat Nat ;-)
I would normally use just the [] array literal, but was declaring this particular array amongst a bunch of others that were all using (apparently not optimally) new Array(…)
I read the conventions link you posted and I quote, “Use the Array constructor only to allocate an array of a prespecified size, as in new Array(3), which means [ undefined, undefined, undefined ], not [ 3 ].” So out with new Array() (which to be fair is a bit more descriptive) and in with [] from hence forth.
true != “true”
Errrr, actually true is equal to “true”. But it ain’t equal to “” ;-)