For me, def == var, in my mental model. Which means == Object. > This is how I was looking at it since that’s how it has been documented, but it has not been implemented that way.
At this point of the discussion I understood it is a documentation issue, but still something in my mind is telling me we should have def == var. It would be groovier! Cheers, Gianluca > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 5:08 PM MG <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote: > Hi Rémi, >> >> 1. yes, I saw that, thank you. >> 1. Most of the examples seemed obvious to me, and the bugs that >> could be introduced feel like they are a little bit on the artficial >> side. >> 2. But, having said that: Inferring an interface type or a less >> specific parent type in some cases could imho be a very Groovy thing: >> 1. e.g. inferring List<T> instead of ArrayList<T> >> 2. Potentially through some explicit construct, such as "var>" to >> indicate that a more loose / interface type shall be used. >> 3. Not that I see any of that becoming a reality anywhere in the near >> future... ;-) >> >> Cheers, mg >> >> PS: I googled a bit, and I could not find in general that ppl think var >> in Java is something you should avoid. Instead, as with any language >> feature, one can over-/abuse it, thereby making code less readable than >> when using explicit types. >> It is funny thinking about this in the context of Groovy, where >> typically ppl who use it as a scripting language do not even use final >> instead of def when defining variables, even though they will never >> reassign said variable 99% of the time... ;-) >> >> There is an official guide that explains some of the gotchas >> https://openjdk.org/projects/amber/guides/lvti-style-guide >> >> regards, >> Rémi >> >> >> > > -- > *Guillaume Laforge* > Apache Groovy committer > Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud <https://cloud.google.com/> > > - Blog: glaforge.dev > - Twitter: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> > - Mastodon: @glafo...@uwyn.net <http://%40glafo...@uwyn.net/> > >
