Re: Interest in a @UtilityClass AST transform

I think the name is good. I feel @Static would be a natural choice to be extended to support typical METHODS or FIELDS paramters, to only make these static, which does not make sense for an utility class, which by definition is static-only. On 12.01.2018 02:44, David Clark wrote: I vote ye

Re: Interest in a @UtilityClass AST transform

I feel that this would register only on the ok-to-have level for me, for the simple reason, that 1. You do not typically have a lot of utility-classes (or function-classes) in a project 2. Afaiks all you save is the static keyword before every method, because if you incorrectly instantiate

Re: Interest in a @UtilityClass AST transform

I vote yes. Is @UtilityClass the expected name? Something like @AllStatic or just @Static makes more sense to me, but if @UtilityClass is in widespread use, then keep the name. On 01/11/2018 06:57 PM, Paul King wrote: Hi all, Would there be interest in a @UtilityClass annotation - similar

Interest in a @UtilityClass AST transform

Hi all, Would there be interest in a @UtilityClass annotation - similar to lombok's: https://projectlombok.org/features/experimental/UtilityClass It is similar to @Category in some ways but with some useful differences. What do folks think? Cheers, Paul.