This is a good example of a feature that can be experimented with as an external AST transformation, there's no need to add it to core just yet.

Advantages of such approach:
 - faster development/release cycle.
 - can target specific Groovy version to begin with.
 - may break compatibility until feature works as expected.

Adding this feature to core in an early stage (conception) is too early IMHO.

Remember that @TailCall started life as an external AST xform, it was added to core when it became mature enough :-)


Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
JCP EC Associate Seat
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:28 PM, ocs@ocs <> wrote:

some NPE-related problems of today brought me to re-interate one of my older suggestions.

We have the so-called “safe navigation”[*], which in some cases allows a null to be propagated out of an expression instead of throwing a NPE. At the moment, it can be triggered for a particular sub-expression (like property/method-call and, as of 3, newly also indexing) using a question mark (e.g., “foo?.bar()” or “foo?[bar]”).

Do please correct me if I am wrong, but far as I know, there still are expressions which do not allow the “safe mode”, e.g., arithmetic (“a+b” etc). Furthermore, there are cases when one simply wants a bigger block of code to contain only null-propagating expressions and never NPE; in such case, using the question mark syntax is both inconvenient and error-prone (for it is very easy to forget one of the lot of question marks needed in such a code, and then get an uncaught unwanted NPE).

For these reasons, I would suggest adding a new annotation, whose name might be e.g., “ImplicitSafeNavigation”; it would simply force a null-propagation to be implicitly and automatically used for *all* expressions in the annotated scope, i.e., NPE would never be thrown for them; for example:

@ImplicitSafeNavigation class Foo {
 static foo(a,b,c,d,e) {*c[d]<<e.bax() // just e.g.; would work with *any* expression which NPEs today
assert null ==,null,null,null,null)

I wonder whether this enhancement would be possible to implement in some forthcoming Groovy release? Myself, I believe it would help tremendously.

If feasible, then it is for a further discussion whether in the scope of this annotation
(a) a safe-navigation syntax (“foo?.bar”) should be ignored as superfluous;
(b) or, whether in this scope it should reverse the behaviour to trigger an NPE anyway;
(c) or, whether it should be ignored as (a), and aside of that it would be worth the effort (and technically possible) to add another syntax to force NPE over a particular sub-expression (e.g., “foo!.bar”).

Thanks and all the best,

[*] The name might not be quite apt, for propagating a null is not inherently safer than NPEing; those are simply two different approaches, both of which serve best in different circumstances. A better name would be something like “null-propagating” or “non-NPE” mode, I guess. Myself, I don't think we should change the name though, for all are used to it.