groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: changing "with" to return self or doto
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:46:42 GMT
and you are ok with "doto"?

On 06.07.2016 15:38, Søren Berg Glasius (GR8Conf EU) wrote:
> +1 to making a new method
>
> Best regards,
> Søren Berg Glasius
> GR8Conf Europe organizing team
>
> GR8Conf ApS
> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf.eu <http://www.gr8conf.eu/>,
> Skype: sbglasius
> Company Address: Buchwaldsgade 50, 5000 Odense C, Denmark
> Personal Address: Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
> --- GR8Conf - Dedicated to the Groovy Ecosystem
>
> From: Winnebeck, Jason <jason.winnebeck@windstream.com>
> <mailto:jason.winnebeck@windstream.com>
> Reply: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
> <users@groovy.apache.org> <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
> Date: 6. juli 2016 at 15.37.21
> To: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
> <users@groovy.apache.org> <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: changing "with" to return self or doto
>
>> My vote for whatever that's worth is never to change the way "with"
>> works, even in 3.0, or any method that is not widely considered
>> "broken". The request feels arbitrary to me, and in that case I would
>> defer to existing behavior. So I vote to just create a new method if
>> that behavior is needed.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org
>> <mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:31 AM
>> To: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: changing "with" to return self or doto
>>
>> I have to confess I have been testing the waters a bit ;) Anyway, I am
>> happy we decided on not having this in 2.5. The problem of course now
>> is if we still want it as different method like doto or self, or if we
>> really want to push this to 3.0 and what should I do with the poor guy
>> from the pull request? Actually starting a 3.0 branch does not look
>> right atm too.
>>
>> On 06.07.2016 14:41, Canoo wrote:
>> > We can only make breaking changes where the old behavior was just wrong.
>> > The proposal would have been ok as well if we had started with it. But given
what we have now, it is a "won't fix".
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Dierk
>> > sent from: mobile
>> >
>> >> Am 06.07.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org <mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org>>:
>> >>
>> >> We have an overlap ofhttps://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/174 and
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-3976. That I would like
>> to discuss.
>> >>
>> >> Basically 3976 is about making "with" return the object it operates
>> >> on. Right now we have
>> >>
>> >> assert 1 == x.with {1}
>> >> assert x == x.with {it}
>> >>
>> >> and after 3976 we would have:
>> >>
>> >> assert x == x.with {1}
>> >> assert x == x.with {it}
>> >>
>> >> The mentioned pull request goes with the same logic, but using a new method.
My opinion on this is, that we should go for a breaking change in 2.5 and change "with", instead
of adding another method on Object.
>> >>
>> >> What do you guys think? Do you agree, or should we keep the current behavior,
should there be a doto method instead?
>> >>
>> >> PS: just in case some people are wondering... I am trying to get some of
our old pull requests in, there are too many and keeping them open so long is an insult to
contributors..
>> >>
>> >> So if I do not forget about this and if there are no reactions I am going
to change "with"
>> >>
>> >> bye Jochen
>> >
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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