Is there any language that differentiates between one space and multiple
whitespaces as a separator? My experience with C, C++, Java, Groovy, etc. is
that any number of whitespaces are the same in terms of separation between
tokens.
In terms of parsing, you can't tell that an identifier is a m
Additionally, you are forcing the hand of users in terms of brace style if you
require a closure to have its opening brace on the same line as the method
call/name.
-Original Message-
From: Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 10:20 AM
To: dev@groovy.apa
Hi Daniel,
good to hear you seem to be well :-)
Maybe I am missing something, but right now I don't see where writing a
standalone closure in the code would makes sense, since it is not
assigned to anything, and its creation has no side effects (?)
The only application I can see is calling i
On 28.03.20 04:06, Daniel.Sun wrote:
Hi all,
Current groovy grammar of method call contains the following
ambiguities, which are odd for users. For example,
1) method call with closure argument. That means the closure on the next
line could be treated as argument of method `meth`
```
me
> On Mar 29, 2020, at 0:19, Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
> wrote:
>
> Is there any language that differentiates between one space and multiple
> whitespaces as a separator? My experience with C, C++, Java, Groovy, etc. is
> that any number of whitespaces are the same in terms of s
AFAIK, Groovy learned quite a few design ideas from many great language,
e.g. Ruby. The optional parentheses feature was inspired by Ruby. The
feature makes Groovy more friendly as DSL to users, but ambiguities
introduced... Ruby has similar troubles(See the following link)
https://stackoverflow
Actually, we have already force some code style... But the code style is not
unified:
2.5.8 parses the following code as a variable and a method call with closure
argument
```
a | meth { p ->
}
```
Let's add a newline. 2.5.8 parses the following code as binary expression
and a closure
```
a | me
Hi MG,
Understood. Some spock code care the differences, e.g. the following
code
```
modification| expected
{ Instant i, ZoneId z -> i.plusSeconds(1) } | defaultInstant.plusSeconds(1)
```
is expected to parsed as 2 binary expressions:
```
modification
Hi Jochen,
> How about unifying the other way around and make 1 and 2 both a method
> call with a closure for meth?
Groovy 3 has already unified them by accident... but some spock code is
broken, so we are trying to find a way to please everyone ;-)
```
modification
Nice catch ;-)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
-
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
10 matches
Mail list logo
