Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60761200C01 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:25:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 5D901160B54; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id CC86B160B42 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:25:45 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 77846 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2017 12:25:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 77829 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2017 12:25:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 4BDC51804B1 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.472 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.472 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=1.187, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cb53WJw-ASnJ for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbob.nabble.com (mbob.nabble.com [162.253.133.15]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id D7D5A5F365 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.22.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.22]) by mbob.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126953AB68D2 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:07:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 05:25:32 -0700 (MST) From: Daniel Sun To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Message-ID: <1484828732466-5737831.post@n5.nabble.com> Subject: The priority of .. and . (GROOVY-3240) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:25:46 -0000 Hi all, I'm taking a look at GROOVY-3240 , which was raised by me some years ago. I wonder whether .. has higher priority than DOT(.) or not. Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/The-priority-of-and-GROOVY-3240-tp5737831.html Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.