tps://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resources/core/NegativeRelationalOperators_02x.groovy
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-
gt;
>> The static compilation example codes can be found at
>> https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negative
>> RelationalOperators/src/test/resources/core/NegativeRelatio
>> nalOperators_02x.groovy
>>
>>Any thoughts
< 2
>> assert 2 !< 1
>> assert 2 > 1
>> assert 1 !> 2
>> assert 1 in [1, 2]
>> assert 3 !in [1, 2]
>>
>> The static compilation example codes can be found at
>> https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negative
&g
gt; assert 1 !> 2
> assert 1 in [1, 2]
> assert 3 !in [1, 2]
>
> The static compilation example codes can be found at
> https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/
> negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resources/core/
> NegativeRelationalOperators_02x.groovy
>
>
== ~(a | b)
>>
>> Could you confirm whether the semantics of these operators are right
>> or not?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel.Sun
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-r
mp; a ~& b === ~(a & b)
> 6) ~| a ~| b === ~(a | b)
>
>Could you confirm whether the semantics of these operators are right
> or not?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://groov
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Henrik Martin wrote:
> -1. I never knew I was missing those operators. I think there's a huge
> benefit to having a clean syntax.
> +1 for !in and !instanceof though.
Same here!
Thanks,
Roman.
firm whether the semantics of these
operators are right
or not?
Thanks,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736882.html
<ht
: Guillaume Laforge
Reply: dev@groovy.apache.org
Date: 22. november 2016 at 12.44.25
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Cc: Groovy_Developers
Subject: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
I must confess I'm also a bit worried with those operators too.
For !in and !instanceof, I really
=== ~(a | b)
>>
>>Could you confirm whether the semantics of these operators are
>> right
>> or not?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel.Sun
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble
>>
~(a | b)
>
>Could you confirm whether the semantics of these operators are right
> or not?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-
> relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736882.html
> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
b === ~(a & b)
6) ~| a ~| b === ~(a | b)
Could you confirm whether the semantics of these operators are right
or not?
Thanks,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736882.
t;>
>>> Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
>>> instead, which is much close to our mind :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel.Sun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>&
Hi Jochen,
> "a !&& b" for a nand instead of "!(a && b)" or instead of "!a || !b"
> then there is also ~& and !&
Looks good. They've been added to my TODO list :)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
htt
bfcda)
I'll merge the feature into parrot branch of apache/groovy later if you
like it too :)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736848.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list
> === and !=== are available for Groovy 3, so "!is" is not necessary.
The identity operators should be === and !==:)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736834.html
+1
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right now
> a=b, which means !< is >=. And in this case I
> actually prefer >=.
>
> bye Jochen
>
://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/commit/
> 69023a63446d14add54f43d3d7797c9dd2a7f903
>
> If it is ok, I'll merge it into parrot branch of apache/groovy.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.co
Interesting, haha :)
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736831.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
f it is ok, I'll merge it into parrot branch of apache/groovy.
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736830.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
>>
>>> De: "Graeme Rocher"
>>> À: dev@groovy.apache.org
>>> Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
>>> Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>>>
>>
>> In agreement with e
On 18.11.2016 15:52, Remi Forax wrote:
- Mail original -
De: "Graeme Rocher"
À: dev@groovy.apache.org
Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
In agreement with everyone else
On 18.11.2016 14:11, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi Jochen,
I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right
now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this
case I actually prefer >=.
Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
instead, which is much c
t;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jochen,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think !instanceof and !in are ok. The others... not sure here. Right
>>>>>> now a*=b, which means !< is >=. And in this
>>>>>> case I actually prefer >=.
>>>>>>
>>&
t;>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
>>>> Sent from the Groovy D
s
>>> > case I actually prefer >=.
>>>
>>> Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
>>> instead, which is much close to our mind :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel.Sun
>>>
>&g
;
>> - Mail original -
>> > De: "Graeme Rocher"
>> > À: dev@groovy.apache.org
>> > Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
>> > Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
>> > Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>>
edi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
> > Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
>
> > In agreement with everyone else here.
> >
> > +1 to !in and !instanceof
> > -1 to everything else
> >
> > Cheers
>
> even !!
>
> Rémi
>
> >
>
- Mail original -
> De: "Graeme Rocher"
> À: dev@groovy.apache.org
> Cc: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org
> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 15:16:04
> Objet: Re: Negative relational operators for Groovy 3
> In agreement with everyone else here.
>
>
s !< is >=. And in this
>> > case I actually prefer >=.
>>
>> Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
>> instead, which is much close to our mind :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel.Sun
>>
&
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discus
google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
____
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736815.html
To unsubscribe from Negative relational
gt;=. And in this
> > case I actually prefer >=.
>
> Sometimes we write code like "!(a > b)", now we can write "a !> b"
> instead, which is much close to our mind :)
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View th
, which is much close to our mind :)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736816.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
>>> which is proposed by Guil
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>
> On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
>> which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
>>
>> Here are some example
>> codes(https://github.
.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relational-operators-for-Groovy-3-tp5736809p5736813.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi all,
The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
Here are some example
codes(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resource
On 18.11.2016 13:45, Daniel Sun wrote:
Hi all,
The new parser(Parrot) supports negative relational operators now,
which is proposed by Guillaume Laforge :)
Here are some example
codes(https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resource
ple codes can be found at
https://github.com/danielsun1106/groovy-parser/blob/negativeRelationalOperators/src/test/resources/core/NegativeRelationalOperators_02x.groovy
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
View this message in context:
http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Negative-relationa
40 matches
Mail list logo
