Hi Paul,
On 14/06/2020 03:37, Paul King wrote:
Groovy tries to be as agnostic as it can on many points. Let users
choose between static or dynamic, functional or imperative, etc. Given
some users would like to avoid using blacklist/whitelist, isn't giving
them that option a useful thing?
We are talking about a rarely used part of the API here and we are
talking about just aliases in the first instance. I am not sure it
follows that there is a bigger picture desire to continually change
APIs as users' individual naming preferences change over time.
it would make me happy if no bigger, inherently unattainable goal
exists, so if that is the case, then, as I said, I have no problem with
this change as currently proposed, so it would be +1 from me also G-)
PS: If we are on the topic of aliases and choice again: Maybe the people
in the community who quickly rejected my proposal to introduce "bool" as
an alias for the bulky "boolean" in Groovy might have had time to
reconsider if it is really such a terrible idea* ? I do continue to use
a lot of boolean parameters in my framework (whether a SQL command
should throw on error, whether a SQL expression should be
auto-bracketed, and so on), and it would therefore make the code more
concise/readable - which is something that I think every day at work
when I have to introduce a boolean, since I had used bool in C++ for
many years before I became a Java (and then Groovy :-) ) dev.
(Apart from that, in my opinion, it is small, neat options like that,
that give Groovy an edge, the same as the big, sweeping ones, and makes
it the language that it is and which we all love)
mg
*I would not normally say this, but tbh, even if I value rational
thinking and reasoning, I am not a robot, and it did feel to me like
some people thought that proposing this in itself was outright stupid :-/
