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
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
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,
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
Hi K,
as I said, your proposal overlaps in some areas with what my framework
does, so I was suggesting you keep the functionality and naming
conventions I listed in my last mail in mind when designing the DSL.
My framework is more geared towards developers, who need to be able to
batch create
The other thing worth thinking about is comparing what you propose with
what is available in existing Java libraries and directed at Java
developers. Jooq comes to mind:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ
Be worth think about whether a tiny DSL (if needed) above that is a viable
alternative to achieve
Isn't jOOQ no longer completely OS:
http://www.jooq.org/legal/licensing#databases ?
Quote from their main page:
"Use this /free edition /with your favourite /Open Source DB/ using the
popular Apache Software License 2.0!"
On 22.10.2018 01:28, Paul King wrote:
The other thing worth thinking a
I am not a lawyer but as far as I know they offer commercial support as
well as completely free via ASL2. But yes, a little bit different to
normal. In any case, I was suggesting that it as much a source of
inspiration than the only alternative to look at.
Cheers, Paul.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:
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
