You are right, but I still think it would be a good idea to consider
introducing a general method naming convention, whatever is decided for
Tuple (going all immutable or not).
Since frameworks/languages are moving towards more immutability, the
convention could of course favor that case, e.g.:
Tuple#concat(...) ... create new instance
Tuple#concatThis(...) ... modify instance
Tuple#concatToThis(...) ... modify instance
Tuple#concatIt(...) ... modify instance
Cheers,
mg
Am 26.11.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Mario Garcia:
Apparently the actual Tuple implementation in main branch is creating
new tuples when doing tuple.concat(tuple) (not all but most of), so I
guess is just a matter of making sure what a Tuple is in Groovy. Two
options:
* (1) A tuple is a fixed-length container that can hold any values,
but cannot be modified (it is immutable) (Taken from Julia Lang)
* (2) A tuple is a list of N typed objects (Taken from Groovydoc)
If (1) it doesn't matter the method name because it's clear to me by
its definition that a Tuple is always immutable no matter the method
called.
If (2) a list in Groovy can be modified, so, maybe method names are
important as MG is mentioning
Once said that, I prefer the immutable version of tuples as value
containers, and I'd vote for changing the Groovydoc definition and
enforce immutability to avoid ambiguity.
Mario
El lun., 26 nov. 2018 a las 20:41, MG (<mg...@arscreat.com
<mailto:mg...@arscreat.com>>) escribió:
My 2 Cents: I supply two seperate methods in that case, e.g.:
1) Columns#sort(...) ... sort the List<Column> collection held by
the Columns class (same name for zero parameters case)
2a) Columns#getSorted() ... create new Columns instance with its
List<Column> sorted
2b) Columns#sorted(...) ... create new Columns instance with its
List<Column> sorted (parameter case)
Method names should clearly express what the method does (to me
the imperative "sort", compared with the adjective state "(return
something which is) sorted" does that) - nothing worse than you
thinking you get a new instance, and end up modifying the original
instance, or thinking you are working in place, when in fact you
are creating new objects all the time...
Here:
Tuple#concat(Tuple) ... modify existing
Tuple#concatenated(Tuple) ... return new instance
Cheers,
mg
Am 26.11.2018 um 19:29 schrieb Mario Garcia:
I'd do it if the intention is to enforce immutability of tuples,
like "...any operation applied to a tuple should result in a new
tuple"
Regards
Mario
El lun., 26 nov. 2018 15:44, Paul King <paul.king.as...@gmail.com
<mailto:paul.king.as...@gmail.com>> escribió:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:34 AM <sun...@apache.org
<mailto:sun...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Repository: groovy
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master aa372c484 -> b6933c7ef
>
>
> Add missing concat methods of tuples
[SNIP]
> /**
> * Concatenate a tuple to this tuple.
> */
> + public final Tuple1<T1> concat(Tuple0 tuple) {
> + return new Tuple1<>(v1);
> + }
[SNIP]
Returning a new tuple is important? Vs returning this?
Cheers, Paul.
