This is a really cool idea, especially I like the idea of the compile-time checked ORM example. I wonder whether or not the use in simple cases is productive given JIT inlining and branch prediction when branching on a constant, and decided to phrase that question in an issue https://github.com/bsideup/groovy-macro-methods-proposal/issues/3.
I noticed that the method signature for the macro method does not match the signature used at the call site – does this confuse IDEs like IntelliJ, or does this actually work properly because ASTs must be in a separate JAR, so the @Macro AST has already run to generate a stub with the proper call signature that the IDE sees? Last question, is there any interaction with Java? That is, is it possible for an implementation to provide a “normal” version of the method like in your “warn” example so that Java can call it as a normal method while in Groovy the transform would be applied? In that way you could make a logging library that would work like a normal logging library in Java but in Groovy would apply the macro transformations. Jason From: Sergei Egorov [mailto:bsid...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 5:58 AM To: dev@groovy.apache.org; us...@groovy.apache.org Subject: Macro methods proposal Hey, everyone. It's been awhile since last time I participated in Groovy. I was mostly in read-only mode for the last two years. With this move, I hope to change it. I created a proposal for macro methods (no ETA, initially aimed to 3.0) because I think they are great for the future of Groovy and compile time metaprogramming. You can find the proposal here: https://github.com/bsideup/groovy-macro-methods-proposal Not sure how Apache people will react on it since it's on GitHub, but it was the simplest way for me to share and discuss it. Please note that macro methods are not the same as MacroGroovy - another thing from me already merged to groovy-core. But, MacroGroovy can and should be implemented with macro methods. Grammar and clearness are not my strong points, but we can improve the proposal altogether. For the few years Guillaume, Baruch, Cedric and others were trying to spread the word about macro methods, but the problem here that they are something really new and I didn't succeed explained them back in the days. So, I'm inviting everyone to discuss them, by raising GitHub issues, or here, in mail list, to make them more clear for everyone, including end users. Cheers, Sergei This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.
