and you are ok with "doto"?
On 06.07.2016 15:38, Søren Berg Glasius (GR8Conf EU) wrote:
+1 to making a new method
Best regards,
Søren Berg Glasius
GR8Conf Europe organizing team
GR8Conf ApS
Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf.eu <http://www.gr8conf.eu/>,
Skype: sbglasius
Company Address: Buchwaldsgade 50, 5000 Odense C, Denmark
Personal Address: Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
--- GR8Conf - Dedicated to the Groovy Ecosystem
From: Winnebeck, Jason <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
Reply: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Date: 6. juli 2016 at 15.37.21
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: changing "with" to return self or doto
My vote for whatever that's worth is never to change the way "with"
works, even in 3.0, or any method that is not widely considered
"broken". The request feels arbitrary to me, and in that case I would
defer to existing behavior. So I vote to just create a new method if
that behavior is needed.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:31 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: changing "with" to return self or doto
I have to confess I have been testing the waters a bit ;) Anyway, I am
happy we decided on not having this in 2.5. The problem of course now
is if we still want it as different method like doto or self, or if we
really want to push this to 3.0 and what should I do with the poor guy
from the pull request? Actually starting a 3.0 branch does not look
right atm too.
On 06.07.2016 14:41, Canoo wrote:
> We can only make breaking changes where the old behavior was just wrong.
> The proposal would have been ok as well if we had started with it. But given what we
have now, it is a "won't fix".
>
> Cheers
> Dierk
> sent from: mobile
>
>> Am 06.07.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>
>> We have an overlap ofhttps://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/174 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-3976. That I would like
to discuss.
>>
>> Basically 3976 is about making "with" return the object it operates
>> on. Right now we have
>>
>> assert 1 == x.with {1}
>> assert x == x.with {it}
>>
>> and after 3976 we would have:
>>
>> assert x == x.with {1}
>> assert x == x.with {it}
>>
>> The mentioned pull request goes with the same logic, but using a new method. My
opinion on this is, that we should go for a breaking change in 2.5 and change "with",
instead of adding another method on Object.
>>
>> What do you guys think? Do you agree, or should we keep the current
behavior, should there be a doto method instead?
>>
>> PS: just in case some people are wondering... I am trying to get some of our
old pull requests in, there are too many and keeping them open so long is an insult
to contributors..
>>
>> So if I do not forget about this and if there are no reactions I am going to change
"with"
>>
>> bye Jochen
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message and any attachments.
