> Calling the method Traversal() without showing on what it is called looks a > bit strange in general in my opinion.
I agree, in general implying a static import in a code example can lead to confusion. If you don't know the context you never really know where the method/static member comes from (the proof is with all the people asking questions about missing static imports in the GLVs lately). It would be less confusing if we were to include the class' name in the example in addition to the static method. Then, `AnonymousTraversalSource.[T/t]raversal()` isn't extremely gorgeous so I was thinking we could have used a more generic name for the class like `TinkerPop` or `Gremlin`, just my 2 cents [ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/968 ] This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
