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 14:39:14 GMT
I might have mixed things up, yes.. tap for Ruby, doto for Clojure

On 06.07.2016 16:10, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
> I haven't heard of doto before, but it makes sense to use a method name that exists in
another popular and similar language if it works in exactly the same way. You said that doto
is in Ruby, although I could only find "doto" in Clojure, which works as people ask for. In
Ruby I found a method "tap" (http://seejohncode.com/2012/01/02/ruby-tap-that/). I think either
can make sense. It's hard for me to see "doto" as two words "do to" for whatever reason and
"tap" is more expressive of the common use case, but perhaps not as immediately obvious as
"do to".
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:47 AM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Re: changing "with" to return self or doto
>
> 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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