On 01/08/2020 20:55, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 01.08.20 19:41, MG wrote:
This has of course been discussed many times before - maybe a "size"
operator:
#list // list.size()
#map // map.size()
#string // string.length
a size() method is the way of consistency we did go for. It exists on
collection, string, array and map. We added it to string and array so
you do not to have to remember using length or length()
I know, and that was and is a good idea imho. Just still feels
non-Groovy to always have to write "${p.size()}" instead of just
"$p.size"* :-)
("$#p" would need to be supported for this to be helpful in this case,
evidently)
which people could override (e.g. sizeOf() method) and which unifies all
kinds of "how many elements do I hold / how big am I" concepts (if its
not a collection holding items) ?-)
why sizeOf() if there is already size()?
Because it would be the method corresponding to the operator, and while
I would make sizeOf() default to size() on maps, collections, etc, it
would allow for sizeOf to be different from size() (the developer would
have to check if this violates least surprise).
I just threw the idea out there, but the "#"-operator could e.g. be
used by someone to return how many children a abstract node or a
concrete person has, if that made sense in his framework.
Cheers,
mg
PS: If there is further discussion on this, we should probably move it
to dev...
