>
>
> For posterity's sake, could you drop those links off here (or are you
> referring to the ones Ray posted in the G+ community? The phrase "javac 8"
> doesn't ring any bells for me).
>
>
Nevermind. I just browsed the group and saw the thread. My bad.
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Go
>
>
> Thanks! I think this proposal is the most conservative way to enhance
> GWT.create(). A more radical approach would be to forget GWT.create() and
> imitate what scala macros do, as was suggested by Gotktug:
>
> @Macro(SumGenerator.class)
> int sum(int arg0, int arg1) {
> return 0;
I got a tweet from you asking for a donation (or rather a 'partner', which
apparently means 'money'), but couldn't frame a useful response in 140
chars, so since this thread is coming back, I thought to do so here
instead.
What license are you offering these code samples under - if it isn't
someth
As an alternative to what Goktug proposed about macros, we would have an
equivalent to Scala macros (sorry for insisting with Scala :-) )
@Macro(SumGenerator.class)
Integer sum(Integer arg0, Integer arg1) {
// We will never be here
return null;
}
// rebind space
class SumGenera
Thanks for looking into how to improve Java stack traces. I agree that we
could do a better job. However, there are some problems with your approach:
First of all, we can't guarantee that we will accept this change. That
doesn't seem very fair to whoever might be donating money.
I would like to m
Hi Brian, thanks for the feedback!
What you proposes is not so hard to add, but I want the API end users to
not have to deal with GWT.create() at all.
El lunes, 19 de agosto de 2013 19:18:24 UTC-3, Brian Slesinsky escribió:
>
> Interesting. I like the idea of replacing class parameters with some
Hi James, thanks for your feedback!
> Note that the @GwtCreate class parameters aren't replaced by
>> GwtCreateFactory as was originally suggested by Ray Cromwell. This provides
>> access to actual parameters.
>>
>>
> It would be possible to do a full replacement if the factory also gave
> ac
