So I have a method that takes in a String and then is suppose to set the dynamic textbox on a button to said String.
public function setText(caption:String) {
this.btext.text = caption;
}
I really don't understand why this method is producing a 1119 error.
Access of a possibly undefined property btext through a reference with static type Button.as
The instance name of the Dynamic Textbox is btext and I have tried deleting the textbox and making a new one however this still produces a 1119 error. I also read on another stack question that trying this['btext'].text = caption; which gave me plenty of runtime errors.
Basically what am I doing wrong?
Thank you for any help.
EDIT
Here is the code I am using, and I create an instance of button add it to the stage and store it in an array with this code.
Code to create button
this.buttonArray.push(this.addChild(weaponButton));
Button.as
package {
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.filters.*;
public class Button extends MovieClip {
public function Button() {
}
public function setPosition(xpos:int, ypos:int) {
this.x = xpos;
this.y = ypos;
}
public function setScale(xScale:Number, yScale:Number) {
this.scaleX = xScale;
this.scaleY = yScale;
}
public function addDropShadow():Array {
var dropShadow:DropShadowFilter = new DropShadowFilter(2,45,0, 1,4,4,1,1,true);
return [dropShadow];
}
public function removeDropShadow():Array {
return null;
}
public function setText(caption:String) {
this.btext.text = caption;
}
}
}
As you have stated btext is an instance name of an object. Here is where I assume btext is an object you created in your library.
In your class you are doing 2 things wrong. So lets examine your method.
public function setText(caption:String) {
this.btext.text = caption;
}
The first thing wrong is you are using "this". "this" is a reference to the current instance of the class you are in. And you are saying btext is a property on said instance. Which as I am assuming it is not because you defined btext as an object in your library. This will give you the property is undefined error you are gettting.
Now the second issue at hand is you are about to ask "OK how do I reference btext in my class then". What you need to know is that only objects added to the display list IE:stage can access objects via the stage.
You can do this 3 ways.
The first way is to pass a reference to the button into the class and store it as a property of the class.
The second way is to add your class to stage and in the class listen to the addedToStage event. At that time you can then access the object.
MovieClip(root)["btext"].text
The first 2 methods are not good practice since btext is not apart of the class and a general rule of thumb would be to encapsulate your class.
To make this work what you could do is have your class assign the value to a property in your class then fire an event and make the parent of this class listen to that event then just grab the value and assign.
Here is some suggested reading
I think the variable btext doesn't exist at all, or is it inherited from Movieclip?
Related
I made small .fla file in Flash Professional, and I have added .as (ActionScript File) in Flash Professional, and I have added something like code below to .as (ActionScript file), but the error appears and I am trying to figure it out, but can't, so I decided to post it in here instead.
package
{
import flash.display.MovieClip;
public class Bag extends MovieClip
{
static var firstBag:String;
public static function set setFirstBag(value:String):void
{
firstBag = value;
}
public static function get getFirstBag():String
{
return firstBag;
}
}
}
and I called it like this:
button1.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, onClickFirstButton);
function onClickFirstButton(e:MouseEvent):void
{
Bag.setFirstBag("First slot in the bag has been filled up!");
}
But I have received this following error:
Call to a possibly undefined method setFirstBag through a reference
with static type Class.
What could I do wrong?
The .as file and .fla file are on the same folder.
if I changed the Bag class to static. The error will be like this:
The static attribute may be used only on definitions inside a class.
Your answer much appreciated!
Thank you!
You're useing get like it is a mettod, but thay are accessors for properties so intead of:
Bag.setFirstBag("First slot in the bag has been filled up!");
use
Bag.setFirstBag ="First slot in the bag has been filled up!";
A few additional thoughts...
While syntactically valid, the definition and naming of your getter and setter is confusing and atypical, which I think contributed to your confusion about the behavior. You've actually defined two separate properties, one is write-only ("setFirstBag") and one is read-only ("getFirstBag"). Usually you define a getter/setter as the same property (ex "firstBag"), and without any "get" or "set" in the property name, since that is what the getter/setter is defining for you. Example:
private static var _firstBag:String;
public static function get firstBag():String {
return _firstBag:
}
public static function set firstBag(value:String):void {
_firstBag = value;
}
// usage
Bag.firstBag = "stuff";
trace(Bag.firstBag); // "stuff"
Also, you may very well have a good reason to use a getter/setter here, or you might just prefer it, but from the code you posted you could just define a public static var to do the same thing. (If you did, refactoring into a getter/setter if you needed some side-effect logic would be trivial, since the public API remains the same.)
I've got a method that accepts a parameter of type Class, and I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass. Right now, all I can figure out to do is this, which does a run-time check on an instance:
public function careless(SomeClass:Class):void {
var instance:SomeClass = new SomeClass();
if (instance as SuperClass) {
// great, i guess
} else {
// damn, wish i'd have known this at compile time
}
}
Is there any way to do something like this, so I can be assured that a Class instance extends some super class?
public function careful(SomeClass:[Class extends SuperClass]):void {
var instance:SuperClass = new SomeClass();
// all is good
}
If you are going to instantiate it anyway, why not accept an object instead which allows you to type it to :SuperClass?
careless(SomeClass);
//vs.
careless(new SomeClass);
Not too much of a problem there as far as your code goes.
There are a few differences though:
The object has to be created, because an object is required. If your function does not instantiate the class under some circumstances, this can be a problem. Additional logic to pass either an object or null can bloat the function call.
If you cannot call the constructor outside that function, it won't
work either.
All that is solved by the factory pattern. Pass a factory as the parameter that produces SuperClass objects.
function careful(factory:SuperClassFactory)
Your requirements:
I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass
and
I need to pass in a Class so that it can be instantiated many times
by other objects later
Can be met by passing in an instance of the class you need, and using the Object.constructor() method.
public function careful(someInstance:SuperClass):void {
//you probably want to store classRef in a member variable
var classRef: Class = someInstance.constructor();
//the following is guaranteed to cast correctly,
//since someInstance will always be a descendant of SuperClass
var myInst:SuperClass = new classRef() as SuperClass;
}
More reading here.
You can't do that in ActionScript 3. In languages like C# you can do something like (forgive me if the syntax is off):
public void Careless<T>() where T : SuperClass
But AS3 does not have 'generics'. Unfortunately the only way I know how to do what you want is the way you have already done.
A pattern that might be more suitable for your use case might be something like:
class SuperClass
{
public static function careless():void
{
var instance:SuperClass = new SuperClass();
// ...
}
}
The only way to have static type checking in ActionScript 3 is to provide an instance of a class.
It is possible but it's expensive. You can use on a Class (not instance) the:
flash.utils.describeType
You then get an XML with a bunch of information including inheritance for that class. Like I said it's an expensive process and probably creating an instance and checking it will be in most cases faster.
I am trying to target a variable in the main .as file (The one that acts as the stage) from another .as file.
public var stageRef:MovieClip = root as MovieClip;
or
MovieClip(root)variable = 10;
don't seem to want to work for me. Neither of them produce any compile errors but when I try to use them they give me a 1009 error, cannot access a property or a null object reference. Any ideas of how i would go about doing this? Thanks in advance.
Im your Main.as class make the variable public. Here's an example:
package
{
import flash.display.Sprite;
public class Main extends Sprite
{
public var YOUR_VAR_HERE:VARIABLE_TYPE = DEFAULT_VALUE;
public function Main()
{
}
}
}
DEFAULT_VALUE is optional. VARIABLE_TYPE is recommended, if not specified the type will be Object by default.
There are many ways to pass a variable to another class. If the class is created inside the Main class, just pass the variable to that class like this:
var myOtherClass:OtherClass = new OtherClass(YOUR_VAR_HERE);
or
var myOtherClass:OtherClass = new OtherClass();
myOtherClass.varReference = YOUR_VAR_HERE;
In first case make sure the constructor is expecting a variable. In the second, make sure the OtherClass has a public variable varReference that you can access and modify.
Another way loved by newbie programmers are static (singleton) variables: in the Main class specify your variable as such:
public static var YOUR_VAR_HERE:VARIABLE_TYPE = DEFAULT_VALUE;
Then you can access YOUR_VAR_HERE simply by referring to the class Main. Like this:
trace(Main.YOUR_VAR_HERE);
NOTE: it's considered to use all uppercase letters for constants, not variables, in this case I used all caps for readability.
I've learned one way to do that, but I want to improve my knowledge. For simplicity I'm not going to use import neither extends in the code below.
1
public class Main
{
public function Main()
{
new MyCustomObject(stage);
}
}
2
public class MyCustomObject
{
public var referenceStage:Stage = new Stage();
public function MyCustomObject(xxx:Stage)
{
this.referenceStage = xxx;
referenceStage.addChild(this);
}
}
I've learned it reading a tutorial over internet, but I want to know where I can find more samples on how to reference objects in AS3. For future codes, I want to add hitTest and the like.
Thanks !
The best place is the ActionScript 3 Reference from Adobe: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/index.html
Here is the specific section on objects: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/Object.html
if you absolutely want to pass a stage reference through an argument to a constructor, you can do so about how you have it laid out (although get rid of the new Stage() call, which won't do anything).
that said, .stage is a property available to all display objects that are in the display list (meaning: the have been added via addChild or addChildAt).
you're probably getting that error trying to reference a .stage property of an object before it's been added to the display list. this is a common error, and can be handled by waiting to reference the .stage property until it has been added, usually using addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE...
so instead of
public class MyObject extends Sprite {
public function MyObject():void{
this.x = this.stage.stageWidth/2;
}
}
you'd use something like this
public class MyObject extends Sprite {
public function MyObject():void{
this.addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, this.addedHandler, false, 0, true);
}
private function addedHandler(e:Event):void{
this.x = this.stage.stageWidth/2;
}
}
HTH
In your example, you don't need do call new Stage() in your CustomObject
public var referenceStage:Stage;
is enough
A hitting function may be found here http://troygilbert.com/2007/06/pixel-perfect-collision-detection-in-actionscript3/
Possible solutions are:
Instead of passing the stage object, you can also pass the main object and calling functions in the main object for the custom object
Maintain an array in the MainObject with which you want do collisions test.
Implementing an Interface (extend an object) with a function which do the hit test agains the array in the MainObject (for example went the EntreFrame Event is fired)
Custom Events are the solution for communicating with the main object loosely
Passing a reference to an object in the constructor is a classic OOP pattern
Possibly bad practice but I'm not well versed in software design anyway (I'm sure this question would have been asked before but I can't seem to find the right terminology)...Anyhow, it's just another curiosity of mine I'd like to have answered.
So I have worked in a way where I type a base class variable to type Object or Sprite or something similar so that in my subclasses, I can instantiate my custom classes into them and store it. And when I access it, I just cast that variable to ensure I can access the methods.
Take this example, so that you know what I'm talking about:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var the_holder_var:Object;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
Now, my subclasses of that base class usually use an interface but for simplicity sake, I'll just write it without it.
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
//Then I can use the 'hackish' getter function below to
//access the var's functions.
this.holder_var.somefunction()
}
private function get holder_var():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return this.the_holder_var as ACustomClassOfMine;
}
}
This works and I'm sure it will make some ppl cringe (I sometimes cringe at it too).
So now, my question, is there a way to recast/retype that base var in my extended subclass?
kinda like this:
public class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
//Not possible I know, but as a reference to see what I'm asking about
//Just want to change the type....
override protected var the_holder_var:ACustomClassOfMine;
public function ExtendedClass()
{
//Then I can forget about having that hackish getter method.
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
this.the_holder_var.somefunction();
}
}
I was thinking of typing most of my base class vars that I use as holders as type * and retyping them as I extend the class. (I could use it here too but yeah...)
Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?
I actually think your code (apart from the hypothetical addition at the end) is pretty alright. The practise of adding accessors to solve the type issue you're dealing with is a solid one. I would advise to rename the accessor to show it is a cast, maybe get holderVarAsCustom():ACustomClassOfMine (I'm also not a big fan of the underscores, that's another language's convention), but that's personal preference. What I'd do to solve your last problem is just create a matching setter function:
private function set holderVarAsCustom(value:ACustomClassOfMine):void {
this.the_holder_var = value;
}
This way you can access the correctly typed holder var for both read and write operations with complete type safety:
holderVarAsCustom = new ACustomClassOfMine();
holderVarAsCustom.someFunction();
I would definately advise against dropping the type safety by including arrays and what not, that just makes it unstable.
I must admit that i'm a little confused as to why you want to do this, but here goes. Could you not utilise the fact that Array's can hold different data types. So something like this:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var customStorage:Array;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
You could then access it with an associative method and a property:
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
private static const myName:String = "myName";
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
customStorage[myName] = new ACustomClassOfMine();
objectIWant.somefunction()
}
private function get objectIWant():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return ACustomClassOfMine(customStorage[myName]);
}
}
Is that any better?
I would not try to tinker this behaviour, since you can't change the declared type of a variable once declared, no matter how hard you try.
What I do in such cases, I either cast the variable if I use it sparingly or the object it references may change, or I add another variable with the type I want and let the other variable point to the new one. Like this:
public class A {
protected var object:Object;
public function A() {
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
and
public class B extends A {
protected var other:MyClass;
public function B() {
super();
this.other = new MyClass();
this.object = this.other;
}
}
Having it this way, class A uses the object via the this.object reference, and class B can use the this.other or both. But both references point to the same object. The only issues with this are:
having two references for in the same class to the same object is ugly (so are untyped variables and casts)
if the object one of them may point can change during runtime, you must be really carefull to synchronize these changes