[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16064557#comment-16064557
]
Dmitri Blinov commented on JEXL-229:
------------------------------------
The difference between a dedicated literal, like Class<String>, and a functor
classp("String") in my view is as the difference between literal
{code}
1234.33B
{code}
and its functional equivalent
{code}
new ("java.math.BigDecimal", "1234.33")
{code}
the readability, compactness and parse-time checks, which is good for Q&A.
The use case I'm after is to get away from now existing functors like
{{isMap()}}, {{isCollection()}} {{isSet()}} and to come to more generic type
checking. I have overloaded the {{=~}} operator to be used with right-hand
{{Class}} instances by calling either Class.isInstance() for objects or
Class.isAssignableFrom() for other Classes, for example
{code}
if (obj =~ klass)
{code}
so I think we can get along without introducing {{instanceof}} operator, but
for the types, as they are very basic Java elements for scripting, like
primitives, IMHO, it would be desirable to have a special language construct.
> Introduce new syntax for class literals: Class<T> and Type<T>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JEXL-229
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-229
> Project: Commons JEXL
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Affects Versions: 3.1
> Reporter: Dmitri Blinov
> Priority: Minor
>
> For the purpose of type checking in jexl, It whould be convenient to have
> some simple syntax for referring to class types, like Class<String> or
> Type<Boolean>. Literal Class<T> should refer to general classes, and literal
> Type<T> should refer to primitive type classes. For literals Class<T> it
> could be possible to specify partal class name, which should resolve to
> classes in basic packages like java.lang and java.util, for example.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
