In my view creating a new instance of a class is a call to its ctor, which takes arguments, for which the (shorthand) syntax in Java and Groovy is (...), not [...] [...] is access by indices / get something at coordinates. Even if one would follow the view that a Class object contains an infinite amount of instances inside of it, which are accessed through class' ctor parameters interpreted as indices, then [...] semantics would still imply that each access with the same index tuple (ie parameters) will return the same class instance - which is evidently not compatible with ctor calls. (This is in addition to the fact that you cannot discontinue the syntactically very different looking mainstream, existing new Goo(...) syntax since it a) is what Java (and other) devs know, b) it is in every Groovy program/script ever written, and c) it is in DSLs.) Cheers,mg
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Daniil Ovchinnikov <daniil.ovchinni...@jetbrains.com> Datum: 05.09.18 14:54 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: Constructor call short-hand syntax I didn’t know that it’s a shorthand constructor syntax when I’ve created a ticket. I thought it should just work as shorthand for getAt call:a[1, 2] == a.getAt(1, 2)a[x: y] == a.getAt(x: y)a?[1, 2] == a?.getAt(1, 2) // this works alreadya?[x: y] == a?.getAt(x: y) And now I see it as a perfect Groovy-style replacement for @Newify. Why even @Newify exists if Groovy already had Person[name: “John”, age: 42] syntax?If such syntax exists, why not extend it to be equivalent to Person.class.getAt(name: “John”, age: 42), where getAt on a class instance would instantiate a new object ?The last question implies that getAt would work with any arguments, including named ones. — Daniil Ovchinnikov JetBrains On 5 Sep 2018, at 01:22, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:52 AM Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote:Am 04.09.2018 um 06:49 schrieb Daniel Sun: > Hi Paul, > > Safe index is only for accessing the elements of collections and object > properties, but not for creating instance. The collections and objects may > be null, so we designed the "safe" index. > > To sum up, I vote -1 to support syntax like `Date[time:0]`, the class > instance will not be null. I think you actually miss the point a little. Let me rephrase... should we support somMap?[x:y] for example. I personally think we can take supporting things like x[y:z] and x?[y:z] as future project... if we find a nice use case for this. We certainly could ... but we don't have such a proposal in front of us right now, so it'swhether we'd like to cater for the current situation in the meantime with an improvederror message. We could remove such an error message at a future point if we havean acceptable proposal. Having said that, it's hard to pick up this error case here without also making themissing : within a ternary error message look more complex. You'd basically needan error message that coped with both cases. Hence my suggestion to close as"Won't fix". (But fix up the empty Map edge case only - without safe decorator). bye Jochen
