-1 to a breaking change (in 2.5 or 3.0). I agree with Jason, breaking changes
only for methods that are widely considered to be broken.
-1 to a new method. While a new method may be better than a breaking change I
don’t like to see Object’s namespace become even more polluted with marginally
useful methods. I don’t think the current behaviour is so offensive that it
requires an additional method on Object; is `x.with { it }` really that bad?
Keith
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We have an overlap of https://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
------------------------------
Research Associate
Department of Computer Science
Vassar College
Poughkeepsie, NY
