Hi Jochen,
there are definitely cases, which would suffice for my application and
where the return type could be deduced also in the dynamic case -
especially if you use final vars and parameters like I do ;-)
IntelliJ's Intellisense is proof of that - just press Ctrl+B at the
method call site, and it will jump to the right method definition :-)
But I am not going to argue this any further, I understand your standpoint.
Just so you understand where I am coming from: I agree that field
initialization at field declaration is unusual, but in my case it is the
only approach that makes sense:
@Table // @InheritConstructors etc
class Table PersonTable {
final FIRST_NAME = column(...)
final LAST_NAME = column(...)
final DATE_OF_BIRTH = column(...)
final SALARY = column(...)
// ...
}
would otherwise become the unwieldy:
@Table
class Table PersonTable {
final Column FIRST_NAME
final Column LAST_NAME
final Column DATE_OF_BIRTH
final Column SALARY
// ...
PersonTable() {
FIRST_NAME = column(...)
LAST_NAME = column(...)
DATE_OF_BIRTH = column(...)
SALARY = column(...)
// ...
}
}
Any table, and view, any query result and nested query would have to be
defined taking more than double the necessary space - that would not be
Groovy, sondern Java... ;-)
lg,
mg
On 12.03.2018 07:52, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 11.03.2018 17:29, MG wrote:
On 11.03.2018 14:58, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 10.03.2018 20:33, MG wrote:
Hi Jochen,
I was not aware that Groovy is so sophisticated in its expression
analysis, that it actually uses intersection types
you actually do not have much of a choice. It is an AST-only
representation only though.
What I meant was: Since Groovy is for instance still using dynamic
call site resolution in @CompileStatic mode (see: Minecraft
obfuscation problem), it might conceivably also fall back to Object &
dynamic resolution in such cases...
the difference is that it is not supposed to do that in static mode ;)
[...]
there is almost no expressions consisting of multiple expression,
that we can tell the type of in dynamic mode. Even something simple
as 1+1 can in theory return a ComplexNumber suddenly.
We already touched on that topic in the past: I still think that
allowing
new Foo()
or
Foo myFoo(...)
to return anything that is not of type Foo is "too flexible", and
therefore should be disallowed, or fail.
Afaics Intellisense also operates on the assumption that types given
are honored in dynamic Grooy.
Integer foo(int i) {1}
String foo(String s) {"2"}
def bar (x) {
return foo(x)
}
at the callsite in bar you cannot tell if foo(int) or foo(String) is
supposed to be called. Methods at runtime increase the problem, but it
is not unique to them. And it does not always have to be an override
in the classic sense either
[...]
From the view of my framework code that goes even more so for the
related case of final x = RHS -> final typeof(RHS) x = RHS I
therefore keep going on about - if dynamic Groovy does not pick up
the RHS type for final, I need to keep my current code, or force
framework users to use @CompileStatic on all Table derived classes,
if they want to define table columns in the most elegant and
concise way... :-)
for "final x = ..." the exact type of x is in dynamic mode actually
totally not relevant. There is no reassignment, so that problem is
out here. But if we forget about that, then there is no difference
between "final x" and "def x". I know cases where it could make a
difference, but they do not exist in Groovy yet. so what exactly is
final x supposed to do different than def x besides the reassignment?
class Foo {
final f0 = new FoorchterlichLongerNome(...) // class field c0
will have type Object; when analyzing the class using reflection,
field cannot be found by looking for fields/properties of type Col
final FoorchterlichLongerNome f1 = new
FoorchterlichLongerNome(...) // class field will be of type
FoorchterlichLongerNome; this is the behavior I would wish for
without explicitely being required to give FoorchterlichLongerNome ,
even in the dynamic case, for simple expressions (as listed above)
}
ah, I was talking about local variables, not about fields/properties.
For me that style is more the exception. And once you move the code to
the constructor you do not get inference for the field/property
anymore. So its good only for some very specific cases. And for those
to make a difference in the dynamic mode...
bye Jochen
