Am 12.09.2018 um 13:59 schrieb mg:
But do they expect GString to be immutable, or do they expect a GString literal to return a String instance (ie for toString() being called implicitely on it) ?
they expect it to be a literal to return String. Us being able to assign a GString to a String does not improve that impression
I would expect the latter. At least I was not aware that the Groovy "GString concept" is actually based on a GString class when I started out with Groovy - using def everywhere together with the fact that Groovy toString|s GString|s when a String is expected do a great job of obfuscating that.
yepp, was actually a goal. GString was supposed to be like a subclass of String. But I never considered that people may not expect subclasses of String.
The question is, where does that lead us... ?
I think we need a way similar to GString literals to construct strings. Either something new, or change GString to something else
bye Jochen
