ide a pre
> > closure and a compact constructor. Should there be an error or warning?
> >
>
> I am not sure it would always be an error/warning or if some natural
> merging could be feasible but I suspect it isn't covered well by existing
> tests. Any help in that are
is no error or warning if I provide a pre
> closure and a compact constructor. Should there be an error or warning?
>
I am not sure it would always be an error/warning or if some natural
merging could be feasible but I suspect it isn't covered well by existing
tests. Any help in t
a compact
constructor. Should there be an error or warning?
From: OCsite
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 2:07 PM
To: MG
Cc: Groovy_Developers ; pa...@asert.com.au
Subject: [EXT] Re: Record enhancements
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.
As for tersity, I presume the actual u
As for tersity, I presume the actual usage would look like „foo as Map“ or „foo
as List“ anyway, which is actually one less keypress :), and — which in my
personal opinion is considerably more important — it offers better consistency
and polymorphism.
(I know next to nothing of Intellisense, bu
Hmmm, yes, that would be an option.
More terse & can be discovered via Intellisense are two reasons I could
think of that speak for the toList()/toMap() approach...
Cheers,
mg
On 02/11/2021 12:48, OCsite wrote:
Hi there,
I am probably missing something obvious here, but why adding separate m
Hi there,
I am probably missing something obvious here, but why adding separate methods
for this instead of simply reusing asType?
Thanks and all the best,
OC
> On 2. 11. 2021, at 8:35, Paul King wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I added "toMap()" to the PR.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:02
Thanks for the feedback! I added "toMap()" to the PR.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:02 AM MG wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> quick "from the top of my head" reply:
>
> copyWith(...): Sounds like a great idea, I have record-like classes in use,
> and the need for something like this arises immediately in pra
Hi Paul,
quick "from the top of my head" reply:
1. copyWith(...): Sounds like a great idea, I have record-like classes
in use, and the need for something like this arises immediately in
practice
2. getAt(int): Don't see why not, might be useful
3. toList(): Destructuring should show its s
Hi folks,
I will be ready for a new Groovy 4 release shortly. I am interested in
folks' thoughts on records as they have gone through a few changes
recently (documented in [1], [2] and [3]) and there is a proposal[4]
for a few more enhancements.
There is a "copyWith" method (still undergoing some
