groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergei Egorov <bsid...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Macro methods proposal
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:27:17 GMT
Hey Jason,

Left a comment on #3.

Yes, the method signature of Macro methods is not the same as the call
site. But, for the given call site, IDE can easily determine the signature,
and I'm pretty sure it has all the information already. Plus, this is a new
language feature anyway, so IDE will have to support it, at least I see no
other options for now.
See https://github.com/bsideup/groovy-macro-methods-proposal/issues/1 about
the syntax as well

Macro methods inherit all the rules of Groovy AST transformations - they
work only for Groovy code.

BR,
Sergei


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM Winnebeck, Jason <
Jason.Winnebeck@windstream.com> wrote:

> This is a really cool idea, especially I like the idea of the compile-time
> checked ORM example. I wonder whether or not the use in simple cases is
> productive given JIT inlining and branch prediction when branching on a
> constant, and decided to phrase that question in an issue
> https://github.com/bsideup/groovy-macro-methods-proposal/issues/3.
>
>
>
> I noticed that the method signature for the macro method does not match
> the signature used at the call site – does this confuse IDEs like IntelliJ,
> or does this actually work properly because ASTs must be in a separate JAR,
> so the @Macro AST has already run to generate a stub with the proper call
> signature that the IDE sees?
>
>
>
> Last question, is there any interaction with Java? That is, is it possible
> for an implementation to provide a “normal” version of the method like in
> your “warn” example so that Java can call it as a normal method while in
> Groovy the transform would be applied? In that way you could make a logging
> library that would work like a normal logging library in Java but in Groovy
> would apply the macro transformations.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> *From:* Sergei Egorov [mailto:bsideup@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 5:58 AM
> *To:* dev@groovy.apache.org; users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* Macro methods proposal
>
>
>
> Hey, everyone.
>
>
>
> It's been awhile since last time I participated in Groovy.
>
> I was mostly in read-only mode for the last two years.
>
>
>
> With this move, I hope to change it.
>
>
>
> I created a proposal for macro methods (no ETA, initially aimed to 3.0)
> because I think they are great for the future of Groovy and compile time
> metaprogramming.
>
>
>
> You can find the proposal here:
>
> https://github.com/bsideup/groovy-macro-methods-proposal
>
>
>
> Not sure how Apache people will react on it since it's on GitHub, but it
> was the simplest way for me to share and discuss it.
>
>
>
> Please note that macro methods are not the same as MacroGroovy - another
> thing from me already merged to groovy-core. But, MacroGroovy *can* and
> *should* be implemented with macro methods.
>
>
>
>
>
> Grammar and clearness are not my strong points, but we can improve the
> proposal altogether.
>
>
>
>
>
> For the few years Guillaume, Baruch, Cedric and others were trying to
> spread the word  about macro methods, but the problem here that they are
> something really new and I didn't succeed explained them back in the days.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, I'm inviting everyone to discuss them, by raising GitHub issues, or
> here, in mail list, to make them more clear for everyone, including end
> users.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergei
> This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message and any attachments.
>

Mime
View raw message