Re: [GitHub] groovy pull request: Link to MrHaki's blog in TupleConstructor jav...

I side with Cédric here. The Java/Groovy docs should only link to other parts of the official documentation, or at least to endpoints the Groovy team controls. I don’t have to go online to read the docs or root around in my ~/.m2 repo to find them, they are displayed automagically by my IDE an

Re: Release 2.5 Beta?

> On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Guillaume Laforge > wrote: > > Let's go with mushroom, for a change :-) +1 > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Cédric Champeau > wrote: > > > 2016-03-12 0:05 GMT+01:00 Nicholas Grealy

Re: SimpleHTTPServer for Groovy 3( Maybe Groovy 2.5.0? )

-1 as well. While it is a cool feature, I have to agree that it feels more like a lib than something that belongs in the language itself. > On Dec 14, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Daniel Sun wrote: > >> groovy -m com.sparkjava:spark-groovy -c "serve(port: 8080, path: > 'd:\\temp')" > How many character

Re: release process

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Cédric Champeau > wrote: > > The main problem is parrot is that it requires Java 8, and 2.5 is planned to > support 1.7. And bundling such a core thing as an experimental, optional > module is a no-go for me (imagine the bug reports...). We could have a 2.9 > r

Re: release process

really break anything, I just think the changes are large enough to warrant bumping the major version. However, I see we now have a new thread dedicated to this topic so I will continue there. Keith > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Suderman Keith <mailto:suder...@anc.org&

Re: [VOTE] Apache Groovy Roadmap

No. I would like to vote YES as this is almost what I proposed in the "release process" thread, but I think I'm going to have to vote NO as there are potential breaking changes in 2.5 (requiring Java 1.7) and 2.6 (switching to Parrot). Hopefully Parrot doesn't break anything, but I don't know

Re: [GEP]Lazy evaluation for Groovy 3

+1 for the concept. -1 for using parenthesis. As Andrew says, this introduces new behaviour for parenthesis that I think violates the principle of least surprise. Keith > On Mar 17, 2018, at 1:54 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > > Agreed - I don’t think this actually provides much, if any, real val

Re: fin

-1 Coming from a C/C++ background that has `const` I typically do not use final because it does not give me a truly final (const) object and users can still do: final object = new SomeMutableObject() object.mutateMe(); That just rubs me the wrong way. So as Pau says below, I typically skip the