On 21.12.2017 01:43, Nathan Harvey wrote:
I think these features are very similar. Expanding the "use" block's scope is basically the same as adding a global extension method, in my opinion
we may have differing definitions for global here I guess. A lexical scope limited use-block is the plan for static categories.
(the entire "use" schema doesn't seem to have any advantages over extensions anyway).
extensions methods are always active, categories are not. As such you can induce specific controlled behaviour if you need it, when you need it. Extension methods don´t allow that level of control. I think that is an advantage, an important one for me, but I can very well imagine scenarios in which people do not care about that.
I think the best way forward is to get an experimental, working implementation of same-module extensions. Once again, the syntax I mentioned removes the necessity for annotations or special import statements. Perhaps for temporary purposes an annotation should be introduced. What do you think about this?
Sure, let us not be blinded by syntax discussions. Better is to define the static and dynamic semantics of the construct. But frankly, the dynamic semantics, the normal Groovy behaviour, is what did hold me back in the past here. Or should I say the implementation?
bye Jochen
