+1
Would it be sensible/possible to add a Closure.FIRST_ARGUMENT resolve
strategy and include it in the default resolution chain? The 'it'-less
closure would behave as expected even without pre-assigning the delegate
(provided that length() was not defined by the delegate/owner). It'd still
probab
I accidentally discovered that Groovy 2, in contrast to Java, allows you to
apply the ++ and -- operators to the left and right sides of variables
simultaneously.
int i = 0
++i++
assert i == 1
and you can also chain them in a single statement provided you apply parens
int i = 0
((i++)++)++
asser
Good to know I'll be able to use these patterns in Groovy 3...I think :)
-Joe
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Sun
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I've added your sample code as test
> cases(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/commit/
> 9914682e53fb2fe3d4bb335c8153e61066cea317).
>
This isn't a good idea at all, but you can produce the C++ behavior by
overriding next() in a mutable fashion, e.g.
@groovy.transform.TupleConstructor
class Bar {
int value
Bar next() {
++value
this
}
}
Bar b = new Bar(0)
++(++(++b))
assert b.value == 3
But in reality
I've finally gotten around to adding extension methods to the Groovy
JDK for the java.time types. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8334 for reference.
I've generated a copy of the Groovy JDK apidocs with my current changes
here: http://bdkosher.github.io/groovy-3.0-alpha/groovy-jdk
derful!
> I'm really looking forward to seeing that integrated.
>
> Did you also have a pointer to a doc / page / blog which shows those
> methods in action?
> (which we could potentially add to our online documentation)
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:16
can
submit a PR and where we can discuss any minor implementation or
documentation details.
-Joe
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> Sounds awesome!
> Anyhow, I already like what I see, those methods sound very useful to me!
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 4:3
Thanks for the feedback and the pull! Glad there was consensus on the
strict upper bound view for upto/downto. Everything was essentially
straightforward one liners except for those two methods.
Daniel, in regards to being considered as a champion candidate, that's
flattering, but being able to co
-arg upto method to step but add a fourth amount argument. The
> 3-arg downto could be removed. The step method counts up or down depending
> on whether from or to is biggest. It throws an "infinite loop" runtime
> exception given a zero amount. We could follow that behavior.
&g
I noticed the Groovy 2.5.0 documentation reflects the extension methods
added to the java.time package and sub-packages (
http://groovy-lang.org/groovy-dev-kit.html#_working_with_date_time_types),
but the Groovy JDK docs do not mention them (http://groovy-lang.org/gdk.html
).
The necessary files a
+1
>From a class-centric perspective, if Date is available by default,
LocalDate et. al. should also be available.
On Sat, May 31, 2025, 7:48 AM James Daugherty
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Is the proposal to do this for 5.x or earlier?
>
> -James
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 6:25 AM Sergio del Amo
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
