I didn’t know that it’s a shorthand constructor syntax when I’ve created a ticket.
I thought it should just work as shorthand for getAt call:
a[1, 2] == a.getAt(1, 2)
a?[1, 2] == a?.getAt(1, 2) // this works already
a?[x: y] == a?.getAt(x: y)
And now I see it as a perfect Groovy-style replacement for @Newify.
Why even @Newify exists if Groovy already had Person[name: “John”, age: 42] syntax?
If such syntax exists, why not extend it to be equivalent to Person.class.getAt(name: “John”, age: 42), where getAt on a class instance would instantiate a new object ?
The last question implies that getAt would work with any arguments, including named ones.
Am 04.09.2018 um 06:49 schrieb Daniel Sun:
> Hi Paul,
> Safe index is only for accessing the elements of collections and object
> properties, but not for creating instance. The collections and objects may
> be null, so we designed the "safe" index.
> To sum up, I vote -1 to support syntax like `Date[time:0]`, the class
> instance will not be null.
I think you actually miss the point a little. Let me rephrase... should
for example. I personally think we can take supporting things like
x[y:z] and x?[y:z] as future project... if we find a nice use case for this.
We certainly could ... but we don't have such a proposal in front of us right now, so it's
whether we'd like to cater for the current situation in the meantime with an improved
error message. We could remove such an error message at a future point if we have
an acceptable proposal.
Having said that, it's hard to pick up this error case here without also making the
missing : within a ternary error message look more complex. You'd basically need
an error message that coped with both cases. Hence my suggestion to close as
"Won't fix". (But fix up the empty Map edge case only - without safe decorator).