!:: you say? now that's something I can grok :-) If method references are "similar" to Groovy's MethodClosures, would the addition of !:: imply the addition of !.& ?
------------------------------------------- Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast http://jroller.com/aalmiray http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > Perhaps only on method reference, > filter (Objects!::isNull) ? > > Remi > > On November 18, 2016 4:10:24 PM GMT+01:00, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In agreement with everyone else here. >>> >>> +1 to !in and !instanceof >>> -1 to everything else >>> >> >> Same for me. I am undecided about sticky or not (allowing a space) but >> easier to be conservative and loosen later. >> I'm -1 for 'as' (no one has proposed it but another of our operators) >> and probably 'is' too. If we do is, I don't see why we wouldn't do it >> for all methods (that return boolean), e.g. assert 'a'.!isUpperCase() >> and I am a little hesitant about such a notation. >> >> Paul. >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> OK. I see :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 在 Cédric Champeau [via Groovy] <ml-node+[hidden email]>，2016年11月18日 >>>> 下午9:18写道： >>>> >>>> I agree with Jochen and Guillaume: +1 to !instanceof and !in, but I don't >>>> like the other variants. >>>> >>>> 2016-11-18 14:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sun <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jochen, >>>>> >>>>> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right >>>>>> now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this >>>>>> case I actually prefer >=. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "! >>>>> a !> >>>>> b" >>>>> instead, which is much close to our mind :) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Daniel.Sun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> >>>>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html >>>>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >>>> below: >>>> >>>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736817.html >>>> To unsubscribe from Negative relational operators for Groovy 3, click >>>> here. >>>> NAML >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> View this message! >>>> in >>>> context: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3 >>>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Graeme Rocher >>> >> >> > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >
