Quite. There is a number of inconsistencies which I would very much like
cleaned from Groovy, far as reasonably possible. In my personal opinion
probably the worst of them all (though definitely not the only one) is
===
34 ocs /tmp> /usr/local/groovy-3.0.4/bin/groovy q
although o===this is true
It is this inconsistency that prompted me to open GROOVY-8999. I'm trying to
straighten this out cautiously. I thought the "super" qualifier was a
reasonable place to start as it has limited application. Changing the behavior
of "this" and "implicit-this" is quite a large undertaking. It may
Mg,
> On 26 Jun 2020, at 19:29, MG wrote:
>
> Hmmm, yea, in theory - but if you do that I think you are putting yourself in
> a whole lot of pain anyway, since not keeping copy & pasted legacy Java code
> clearely seperate from true Groovy code, and only ever converting whole
> classes, is as
Paul,
> On 27 Jun 2020, at 12:33, Paul King wrote:
> It depends on what you mean by context. Currently, this.x means field access
> within the class and property access outside the class.
It is even more complex that that. If there's no instance variable, it still
falls back to the getter. And
It depends on what you mean by context. Currently, this.x means field
access within the class and property access outside the class. I agree, I
wouldn't like to see "within the class" further split into specific methods
like getters, setters, constructors but not elsewhere. We already have
mechanis
