if you need more recent gpars documentation, i'm working on v2.0 of it that
you can see here: http://gpars.aws.ie.a9sapp.eu
the download page does show gpars 2.0 but it's just copies of 1.2.1 that
i've renamed as placeholders.
since jsr-166Y may be dropped there are a number of gpars features that
Hey Andrew,
How about AstNodeToScriptVisitor? Pretty enough? :)
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35960804/convert-ast-nodes-string-to-groovy-code/35991091#35991091
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:40 PM Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> On 16.03.2017 17:46, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't think t
+1
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Paul King wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I am happy to (re)start the VOTE thread for a Groovy 2.4.10 release!
> This release has the problematic stricter method checking
> (GROOVY-6792) disabled by default but it can be enabled with a system
> property. Thanks J
On 16.03.2017 22:54, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 14.03.2017 12:06, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
It might be worth thinking about whether GPars has a real future since
so few people seem to be interested in actively working on it. With
Quasar (Parallel Universe thing not Quasar Framework) there is a
On 14.03.2017 12:06, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
I also note that JDK9 may have some features that require a rethink of
some GPars implementation detail for a JDK and later specific GPars.
cf. http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/j9mm.html
yes, VarHandles are something to take a look at for sure.
if that means not waiting another year for parrot: +1
On 15.03.2017 04:15, Paul King wrote:
Hi folks,
Earlier in the year, Cédric did a great job of outlining a possible
roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it
but we never quite managed complete consensus.
We had
On 16.03.2017 17:46, Andrew Bayer wrote:
[...]
I don't think there's anything out there that does this currently, so
I'm gonna write up a PR to add this. Now I need to figure out what the
right implementation would be. Do I go with adding useful .toString()
methods to the various ASTNode children
Yeah, I know, you can visualize the AST nicely in the Groovy console, but
I'm dealing with it in the context of Jenkins Pipelines' Groovy CPS
transformation/compilation, so...being able to pretty print would be really
nice for mapping our weirdness out. =)
I don't think there's anything out there
+1 Thanks Paul!
Sent from my primitive Tricorder
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Mario Garcia wrote:
>
> +1
>
>> On 16 Mar 2017 15:29, "Guillaume Laforge" wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Earlier in the year, Cédric did a great job of
+1
On 16 Mar 2017 15:29, "Guillaume Laforge" wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Earlier in the year, Cédric did a great job of outlining a possible
>> roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it
>> but we never quite
+1
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Earlier in the year, Cédric did a great job of outlining a possible
> roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it
> but we never quite managed complete consensus.
>
> We had a fairly clear consensus on
Fixed
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Paul King wrote:
> Hi Cédric, the commit below breaks the JDK 6 build:
> java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError:
> me/champeau/gradle/buildscans/RecipesPlugin : Unsupported major.minor
> version 51.0
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:12 PM, wrote:
>> Repositor
Just a slight deviation to below. The version number on master has
temporarily been set to 2.9.98-SNAPSHOT pending Spock support of
Groovy 3+ version numbers.
Cheers, Paul.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Paul King wrote:
> I have created the 2_5_X branch. I have made master 3.0.0(-SNAPSHOT)
>
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Groovy 2.4.10
> [ ] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok
> [ ] -1 Do not release Apache Groovy 2.4.10 because...
I am not going to be able to check anything in the timebox so
technically must abstain. But otherwise I'd be +1.
--
Russel.
=
On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 14:59 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> Well, if the ASF policy allowed using the wrapper, this discussion
> wouldn't
> happen at all.
So we should make a proposal to the ASF Board for a change such that
the Gradle wrapper can be used for build.
> >
--
Russel.
==
15 matches
Mail list logo
