Guys,
am a bit busy now to dive into the particular debate (later will gladly, if
still runs), just one important point — don't please add new keywords, for that
would break the compatibility with the current codebase. E.g., my projects are
full of “nil”s and “empty”s. “default” would probably
Hi Paul,
1. I suggested Groovy could support additional null-like types, which
are also compatible with any type, but can have different semantics
from null.
1. Some examples:
1. nil, representing "nothing" could dissappear when added to a
collection or inserted into
