Hi Guillaume,
All features added in the new parser have been synch to parrot branch. I
am looking for a better way to report missing the RIGHT parenthesis with less
performance reduction ;)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
在 "Guillaume Laforge [via Groovy]"
，2016年11月24日 上午6:14写道：
Ooops, a mistake
Ooops, a mistake of mine with a missing parens in some code before that.
We might have to pay attention to error reporting, and see how good it is
to help fix developer's mistakes.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> Is the "parrot" branch covering !in already?
>
> I fet
-1 from me on all cases.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> Is the "parrot" branch covering !in already?
>
> I fetched it today, but got issues with !in
>
> if (1 !in [0, 1, 2]) {}
>
> Nov 23, 2016 10:45:29 PM org.apache.groovy.parser.antlr4.AstBuilder
> buildAST
> SEV
Is the "parrot" branch covering !in already?
I fetched it today, but got issues with !in
if (1 !in [0, 1, 2]) {}
Nov 23, 2016 10:45:29 PM org.apache.groovy.parser.antlr4.AstBuilder buildAST
SEVERE: Failed to build AST
org.codehaus.groovy.control.MultipleCompilationErrorsException: startup
failed
-1 from me too, very confusing. +1 for only !in and !instanceof
Cheers
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Agreed.
>
>> On Nov 22, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>>
>> I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
>> For !in and !instanceof, I r
Agreed.
> On Nov 22, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
> I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
> For !in and !instanceof, I really like the idea, but here, it's closer to
> Ascii art.
> What others think?
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Cédric Champea
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Henrik Martin wrote:
> -1. I never knew I was missing those operators. I think there's a huge
> benefit to having a clean syntax.
> +1 for !in and !instanceof though.
Same here!
Thanks,
Roman.
-1. I never knew I was missing those operators. I think there's a huge
benefit to having a clean syntax.
+1 for !in and !instanceof though.
-Henrik
On 11/22/16 3:44 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
For !in and !instanceof, I really li
: Guillaume Laforge
Reply: dev@groovy.apache.org
Date: 22. november 2016 at 12.44.25
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Cc: Groovy_Developers
Subject: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
For !in and !instanceof, I really
I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
For !in and !instanceof, I really like the idea, but here, it's closer to
Ascii art.
What others think?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> I find this very hard to decipher. The fact we wonder about the seman
I find this very hard to decipher. The fact we wonder about the semantics
is a red warning to me. I wouldn't add those to the language.
Le 22 nov. 2016 12:18, "Daniel Sun" a écrit :
> Hi Jochen,
>
> According to your proposals, I'm going to add the following operators:
>
> 1) !&& a !&&
Hi Jochen,
According to your proposals, I'm going to add the following operators:
1) !&& a !&& b === !(a && b)
2) !||a !|| b === !(a || b)
3) !& a !& b === !(a & b)
4) !| a !| b === !(a | b)
5) ~& a ~& b === ~(a & b)
6) ~| a ~| b === ~(a | b)
gt;
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
>>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
Hi Jochen,
> "a !&& b" for a nand instead of "!(a && b)" or instead of "!a || !b"
> then there is also ~& and !&
Looks good. They've been added to my TODO list :)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy
Hi Jochen,
I've modified the implementation according to your suggestions that
ONLY support !in and !instanceof with sticky style. In addition, !in and
!instanceof are REAL operators
now(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/commit/87e2c41763422a6642414028d84efdccb90bfcda)
I'll
> === and !=== are available for Groovy 3, so "!is" is not necessary.
The identity operators should be === and !==:)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736834.html
Sent from the
+1
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right now
> a=b, which means !< is >=. And in this case I
> actually prefer >=.
>
> bye Jochen
>
Ok, great!
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Sun wrote:
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> === and !=== are available for Groovy 3, so "!is" is not necessary.
>
> Currently only "!in" and "!instanceof" are supported with sticky style:
> https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/commit/
> 690
Interesting, haha :)
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736831.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi Guillaume,
=== and !=== are available for Groovy 3, so "!is" is not necessary.
Currently only "!in" and "!instanceof" are supported with sticky style:
https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/commit/69023a63446d14add54f43d3d7797c9dd2a7f903
If it is ok, I'll merge it into par
-
>>
>>> De: "Graeme Rocher"
>>> À: dev@groovy.apache.org
>>> Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
>>> Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>>>
>>
>> In agreement with e
On 18.11.2016 15:52, Remi Forax wrote:
- Mail original -
De: "Graeme Rocher"
À: dev@groovy.apache.org
Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
In agreement with everyone else
On 18.11.2016 14:11, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi Jochen,
I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right
now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this
case I actually prefer >=.
Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
instead, which is much c
s,
>>>>> Daniel.Sun
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relati
t;>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
>>>> Sent from the Groovy D
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736817.html
>> To unsubscribe from Negative relational operators for Groovy 3, click here.
>> NAML
>>
>>
>>
>> View this message in context: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> Graeme Rocher
;
>> - Mail original -
>> > De: "Graeme Rocher"
>> > À: dev@groovy.apache.org
>> > Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
>> > Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
>> > Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>>
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
> >>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> >> below:
> >>
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736817.html
> >> To unsubscribe from Negative relational operators for Groovy 3, click
> here.
> >> NAML
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> View this message in context: Re: Negative relational operators for
> Groovy 3
> >> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Graeme Rocher
>
- Mail original -
> De: "Graeme Rocher"
> À: dev@groovy.apache.org
> Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
> Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
> In agreement with everyone else here.
>
>
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736817.html
> To unsubscribe from Negative relational operators for Groovy 3, click here.
> NAML
>
>
>
> View this message in context: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Graeme Rocher
OK. I see :)
在 Cédric Champeau [via Groovy]
，2016年11月18日 下午9:18写道：
I agree with Jochen and Guillaume: +1 to !instanceof and !in, but I don't like
the other variants.
2016-11-18 14:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sun <[hidden email]>:
Hi Jochen,
> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not s
OK. As most of us just like !in and !instanceof and prefer the sticky style, I
will modify them later. Thanks for your review ;)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
在 "Guillaume Laforge [via Groovy]"
，2016年11月18日 下午9:07写道：
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Guillaume Laforge <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, N
I agree with Jochen and Guillaume: +1 to !instanceof and !in, but I don't
like the other variants.
2016-11-18 14:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sun :
> Hi Jochen,
>
> > I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right
> > now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this
> > case I actual
Hi Jochen,
> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right
> now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this
> case I actually prefer >=.
Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
instead, which is much close to our mind :)
Cheers,
Daniel.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
>>> which is proposed by Guil
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>
> On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
>> which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
>>
>> Here are some example
>> codes(https://github.
Hi Jochen,
> oh... and one question... is "! in" the same as "!in"?
Yeah, the negative relational operators are combined operators, which
will be transformed to normal NotExpression :)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relatio
On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi all,
The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
Here are some example
codes(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resource
On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi all,
The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
Here are some example
codes(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resource
39 matches
Mail list logo
