And again, because apparently MacMail is MUCH smarter than I am... Sending this again because my mail program keeps insisting on changing the From: address... apologies if this gets double posted.
-1 on all proposals that introduce new reserved words that do not have a strong justification and use case. The only thing `fin` and `bool` will do is potentially conflict with existing variable/method names in programs with little other benefit. One of my biggest pet peeve's with Python is how they have polluted the namespace with short names I like to use as variable names (dict, list, etc). Let's not do this with Groovy. Just my two cents. Keith > On Jul 22, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Jennifer Strater <jenn.stra...@gmail.com > <mailto:jenn.stra...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi mg, > > I also don't like the 'fin' proposal, but I could get behind 'bool'. It's > shorter but doesn't lose the meaning. It also makes it easier for people > coming from other programming languages. > > Best, > Jenn > <https://twitter.com/codejennerator> <https://linkedin.com/in/jennstrater> > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:39 PM, MG <mg...@arscreat.com > <mailto:mg...@arscreat.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > since things are going so well with my "fin" = "final" proposal, I propose > that Groovy support "bool" as a shortcut for "boolean". > > "boolean" is already seeing large scale use by Groovy developers, "bool" > instead of "boolean" saves nearly half of the keyword's characters, "bool" is > used in C++, it fits better with the also widely used "int", and Groovy 3.0 > is the ideal opportunity to introduce such language extensions. > > Cheers, > mg > > > > ---------------------- Keith Suderman Research Associate Department of Computer Science Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY suder...@cs.vassar.edu <mailto:suder...@cs.vassar.edu> ---------------------- Keith Suderman Research Associate Department of Computer Science Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY suder...@cs.vassar.edu <mailto:suder...@cs.vassar.edu>
