groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Winnebeck, Jason" <Jason.Winneb...@windstream.com>
Subject RE: changing "with" to return self or doto
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:37:07 GMT
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] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:31 AM
To: 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>:
>>
>> We have an overlap of https://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