Agree with Guillaume here: In my (bad) experience, 15 Facebook friends
is all it takes to swing nearly any poll in your favour and get a
landslide victory.
Am 24.10.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Guillaume Laforge:
Not necessarily. Discussions are better, leading towards a consensus.
Polls can have ver
Hi Remko,
You can get the runtime groovydoc with reflection, here is an example:
AA.class.getMethod('m', new Class[0]).groovydoc.content.contains('method m')
BTW, I think we can add a DGM to simplify the above code ;-)
The complete example van be found at:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/
Daniel,
Question: how do I consume the groovydoc string at runtime in the application?
For example, I would like to do something like this:
——
/**@
* Encrypts a file.
*/
class Encrypt {
static void main(String... args) {
def cli = new CliBuilder()
def descr = // how to get
Hi Guillaume,
> it's still possible to change the syntax at this time without any harm.
Here is the PR to complete the change:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/817
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
-
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer
Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
--
Sent
Since it's for Groovy 3.0, and @GroovyDoc hasn't yet been available in an
officially released version, it's still possible to change the syntax at
this time without any harm.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:40 AM Remko Popma wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 21:48, Keith Suderman wrote:
>
>
>
> On
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 21:48, Keith Suderman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:31 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>> In addition, there is nothing about the long @GroovyDoc notation that tells
>> me the doc string is retained at runtime. So it isn’t actually clearer...
>
> This. When I fir
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:31 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> In addition, there is nothing about the long @GroovyDoc notation that tells
> me the doc string is retained at runtime. So it isn’t actually clearer...
This. When I first saw @GroovyDoc my initial reaction was, "Of course it is
GroovyDoc
I like the short notation much better than the long notation.
The /** notation for Javadoc was cryptic 20 years ago but there was no
resistance to the idea. Why not? Because it was such a useful feature of the
language!
I think we all agree that making GroovyDoc available at runtime is a use
Not necessarily. Discussions are better, leading towards a consensus.
Polls can have very different outcomes depending on how you define the
questions and answers, how you advertise the poll, how you interpret the
results of the poll, etc.
Before any poll, I'd like to hear about those early users o
Raising a poll may be better way to make decisions ;)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
-
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer
Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Hi Guillaume,
thank you fro your reply. All that you are saying is evident to me since
when I perceived Groovy for the first time. It is one of the reasons I'm
so high on Groovy, and not e.g. on Kotlin (which to me has bad syntax
decisions wherever it deviates from Groovy) or Scala, etc: Groov
Groovy always tried to strike a fine balance between conciseness and
readability.
If you look even at our operators, they try to convey some meaning, like ?.
is like let's try to get that field/method with the question mark, or ?:
being a contraction of the ternary operator.
But to avoid making cod
MG’s arguments make sense to me.
Remko
> On Oct 21, 2018, at 23:05, MG wrote:
>
> Yea, sure. But doesn't a new shorthand syntax always have that trait ?-)
> And would that not mean that we can never, ever again introduce a shorthand
> notation in Groovy for anything, unless it is syntacticall
On 21.10.2018 00:42, Paul King wrote:
I am not against a shortened form but I'd wait and see how usage
of @Groovydoc goes first.
If it's use is extremely popular it would make sense to consider shortcuts.
agreed... on a side topic... do we have to do something with Groovydoc
for later java ve
Here is the problem I see with this approach (which I have seen multiple
times now since I joined the ML):
1. The (oftentimes imho plausible) argument for introducing something
new in Groovy is, that current support is too cumbersome (as with
Daniel's proposal).
2. The suggestion then is,
Yea, sure. But doesn't a new shorthand syntax always have that trait ?-)
And would that not mean that we can never, ever again introduce a
shorthand notation in Groovy for anything, unless it is syntactically
based on an existing/established shorthand notation (which in this case
it kinda is, s
Well, /** has been in use for more than 20 years, so we've had time to get
used to it.
/**@ is totally non-obvious. I've no idea what it would have been about
without having read this thread.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 4:28 AM MG wrote:
> I agree with Daniel, I think
> /**@
> would be neither more
I agree with Daniel, I think
/**@
would be neither more nor less cryptic than
/**
which everyone is just used to from Java (and which seems to have no
memnonic / self-explanatory characteristics to me...).
Cheers,
mg
On 21.10.2018 03:04, Daniel.Sun wrote:
Hi Guillaume,
Javadoc switc
Hi Guillaume,
Javadoc switch `/**` is cryptic too at the beginning, but now I
believe few people like the following form ;-)
/*
* @Javadoc
* some Javadoc here
*/
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
-
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer
Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
--
I am not against a shortened form but I'd wait and see how usage
of @Groovydoc goes first.
If it's use is extremely popular it would make sense to consider shortcuts.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 4:22 AM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> I find that a bit too cryptic.
> I prefer it to be more explicit, even
Same here.
p
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 8:22 PM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> I find that a bit too cryptic.
> I prefer it to be more explicit, even if a bit more verbose.
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 3:28 PM Daniel.Sun wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Current switch for runtime groovydoc is a bit v
I find that a bit too cryptic.
I prefer it to be more explicit, even if a bit more verbose.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 3:28 PM Daniel.Sun wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Current switch for runtime groovydoc is a bit verbose, i.e.
> `@Groovydoc` is a bit long. For example,
> ```
> /**
> *@Groovyd
22 matches
Mail list logo
