Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > > On 06.07.2016 16:24, Suderman Keith wrote: >> -1 to a breaking change (in 2.5 or 3.0). I agree with Jason, breaking >> changes only for methods that are widely considered to be broken. > > if no breaking changes even in a new ma

Groovy on Apache Spark and analysis of Groovy source code on Github

Hi all, For those who may not know yet, I've joined Google a few weeks ago. I'm now developer advocate for Google Cloud Platform . There are several interesting and f

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

If we are to add a new method in 2.5 or 3.0 (we should definitely not change the behavior of with{} IMHO), I really like "tap" as a name. On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Juan Vazquez wrote: > Tim Yates created an extension module for tap. > > > https://github.com/timyates/groovy-common-extension

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

Tim Yates created an extension module for tap. https://github.com/timyates/groovy-common-extensions/blob/master/src/main/groovy/com/bloidonia/groovy/extensions/ObjectExtensionMethods.groovy Thanks, Juan On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > On 06.07.2016 16:24, Suderman

RE: changing "with" to return self or doto

In my opinion, some things should never change. It's an attribute of the language. If Groovy is following semver, backwards compatibility should be broken only in 3.x, and in my mind, you should only break backwards compatibility for things widely considered broken or for very major improvement

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

On 06.07.2016 16:24, Suderman Keith wrote: -1 to a breaking change (in 2.5 or 3.0). I agree with Jason, breaking changes only for methods that are widely considered to be broken. if no breaking changes even in a new major version, then when? -1 to a new method. While a new method may be

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

I might have mixed things up, yes.. tap for Ruby, doto for Clojure On 06.07.2016 16:10, Winnebeck, Jason wrote: I haven't heard of doto before, but it makes sense to use a method name that exists in another popular and similar language if it works in exactly the same way. You said that doto is

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

-1 to a breaking change (in 2.5 or 3.0). I agree with Jason, breaking changes only for methods that are widely considered to be broken. -1 to a new method. While a new method may be better than a breaking change I don’t like to see Object’s namespace become even more polluted with marginally

RE: changing "with" to return self or doto

I haven't heard of doto before, but it makes sense to use a method name that exists in another popular and similar language if it works in exactly the same way. You said that doto is in Ruby, although I could only find "doto" in Clojure, which works as people ask for. In Ruby I found a method "t

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

and you are ok with "doto"? On 06.07.2016 15:38, Søren Berg Glasius (GR8Conf EU) wrote: +1 to making a new method Best regards, Søren Berg Glasius GR8Conf Europe organizing team GR8Conf ApS Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf.eu , Skype: sbglasius Company Address:

RE: changing "with" to return self or doto

My vote for whatever that's worth is never to change the way "with" works, even in 3.0, or any method that is not widely considered "broken". The request feels arbitrary to me, and in that case I would defer to existing behavior. So I vote to just create a new method if that behavior is needed.

RE: changing "with" to return self or doto

+1 to making a new method Best regards, Søren Berg Glasius GR8Conf Europe organizing team GR8Conf ApS Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf.eu, Skype: sbglasius Company Address: Buchwaldsgade 50, 5000 Odense C, Denmark Personal Address: Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark --- GR8Conf - Dedic

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

I have to confess I have been testing the waters a bit ;) Anyway, I am happy we decided on not having this in 2.5. The problem of course now is if we still want it as different method like doto or self, or if we really want to push this to 3.0 and what should I do with the poor guy from the pul

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

why self and not doto, as used by Ruby and suggested in the pull request? On 06.07.2016 14:30, Cédric Champeau wrote: I think it's a too risky breaking change. I would go for a separate method. x.self { ... } 2016-07-06 14:20 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou mailto:blackd...@gmx.org>>: We have a

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

We can only make breaking changes where the old behavior was just wrong. The proposal would have been ok as well if we had started with it. But given what we have now, it is a "won't fix". Cheers Dierk sent from: mobile > Am 06.07.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Jochen Theodorou : > > We have an overlap

RE: changing "with" to return self or doto

I actually thought it was an expected feature of "with" to be able to return a value and assign it to a variable. I think it is bad to make such a breaking change in a 2.x version to such a fundamental method of Groovy. I use this extensively, especially in DSLs: @groovy.transform.Canonical cla

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

I agree with Cedric. If you want to do a breaking change like this it should wait until a major release, not a minor. I would not expect breaking changes going from 2.4.x to 2.5.x Best regards, Søren Berg Glasius GR8Conf Europe organizing team GR8Conf ApS Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf

Re: changing "with" to return self or doto

I think it's a too risky breaking change. I would go for a separate method. x.self { ... } 2016-07-06 14:20 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou : > We have an overlap of https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/174 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-3976. That I would like to > discuss. > > B

changing "with" to return self or doto

We have an overlap of https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/174 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-3976. That I would like to discuss. Basically 3976 is about making "with" return the object it operates on. Right now we have assert 1 == x.with {1} assert x == x.with {it} and a

Re: Compile error when using groovy annotation combining groovy and java (using maven)

The update is, that I had less time to work on this than I thought, partially to just being a parent, partially because I moved. On 06.07.2016 11:15, NETEASE wrote: @Jochen, could you provide some updates, thanks. At 2016-07-05 14:49:24, "NETEASE" wrote: hi, is there any updates about th

Re:Re:Re: Compile error when using groovy annotation combining groovy and java (using maven)

@Jochen, could you provide some updates, thanks. At 2016-07-05 14:49:24, "NETEASE" wrote: hi, is there any updates about the issue? At 2016-03-10 21:20:04, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote: > >On 10.03.2016 10:54, NETEASE wrote: >> hi, sorry for repeating the thread @ >> http://www.groovy-lang.org/ma