Same here ;-) Wanted to reply all day, but didn't have the time: Evidently I do think that introducing bool (or fin) is worth its cost, otherwise I would not go through the hassle of proposing and defending it here, knowing that the chances of acceptance are slim indeed. As I've said before, the upcoming Groovy 3.0 makes this the time to propose these things. I think one should not reject a proposal simple on the basis that it might open the door for horrid things that come after it. Proposals are not a zombie horde, but each has to pass the gate on its own merit. dicts/lists/... etc - are not fundamental typs, so they are not lowercase in Groovy, so I guess no fears there that someone might suggest them as keywords. I prefer to express the list content in its name, ie persons or personList, or maybe pel if it is used a lot, but to each his own. Using bool as a name for a boolean variable makes little sense to me, since bools basically cry out to express what true means in their name. So using bool as a name is close to using obj0, obj1, obj2, ... for all your variables to me... Cheers,mg
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Jennifer Strater <jenn.stra...@gmail.com> Datum: 23.07.18 23:15 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: bool Hi Keith, Just FYI, I did get all 3 of your messages. 😂 Best,Jenn On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Keith Suderman <keisuder...@vassar.edu> wrote: 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> 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 On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:39 PM, MG <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 SudermanResearch AssociateDepartment of Computer ScienceVassar College, Poughkeepsie nysuder...@cs.vassar.edu ----------------------Keith SudermanResearch AssociateDepartment of Computer ScienceVassar College, Poughkeepsie nysuder...@cs.vassar.edu
