Re: bool

-1 on supporting “bool”. Again, there’s little gain here and a lot of trouble down the road supporting an aliased type. Sent from my primitive Tricorder > On 23 Jul 2018, at 03:29, mg wrote: > > Hi Jenn, > > @bool: You are right "bool" is of course used by many languages, including > Python

Re: bool

Hi Jenn, @bool: You are right "bool" is of course used by many languages, including Python :-) @meaning of "fin": I was thinking of the French word for "end". Cheers,mg Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Jennifer Strater Datum: 22.07.18 23:57 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org

Re: bool

-1 on all proposals that introduce new keywords 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

Re: bool

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

bool

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 i

Re: fin

By the way you only need "final goo = ..." No need for 'var' in between. (and for me 'final' doesn't seem too long to type) :-) On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:10 PM MG wrote: > I also have a C/C++ background, and would also (still) like to have true > const ;-) > However, Java/Groovy final was neve

Re: fin

I also have a C/C++ background, and would also (still) like to have true const ;-) However, Java/Groovy final was never intended to be const, it declares a const reference/pointer in C++ speak, and using final instead of def has zero disadvantages, but multiple advantages (which I have already l

Re: fin

One of the reasons I suggest this now is, that it would be perfect to introduce such changes in Groovy 3.0: People expect changes, articles and books with the new syntax are written... I test switched our project to Groovy 2.5, and the (improved) final support actual caught 3 places where fina

Re: fin

+1 was in reply to Russel's objection. -- With regards, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be affiliated with

Re: fin

-1 Coming from a C/C++ background that has `const` I typically do not use final because it does not give me a truly final (const) object and users can still do: final object = new SomeMutableObject() object.mutateMe(); That just rubs me the wrong way. So as Pau says below, I typically skip the

Re: fin

-1 There’s no need for such a keyword. You don’t get much by skipping “al” from “final” instead we inherit a lot of trouble with yet another way to define variables/arguments/return types. Sent from my primitive Tricorder > On 22 Jul 2018, at 17:33, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > +1 There was

Re: fin

+1 There was APL once ;) -- With regards, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be affiliated with at the moment

Re: fin

On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 23:50 +0200, MG wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have been wondering for a while whether Groovy developers use > "def" > even if a variable is actually is "final" not only because every > Groovy > example code uses "def", but also because "final" as a word is > longer > than "def".