Sounds good to me! On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, disussion seems to have finished on this topic. I was planning to > merge Christoph's PR with minor tweaks as needed. I was going to use > 'tap' as the name. > > At this stage, unless I hear violent objections, I was also planning > to provide the additional variant that was discussed: > > with(boolean returning, Closure closure) > > so folks could use with(true) if they wanted. It's a little clunky but > is the kind of thing we do in other places within Groovy, provides an > alternative for anyone that finds 'tap' totally foreign and might also > help steer users between the two related methods. > > Cheers, Paul. > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Jordan Martinez > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What about `object.itselfWith(Closure)`? Then its understood as > returning > >> the object itself but with the changes that follow. > > > > Both variants use 'itself' but only one returns 'itself', so I would > > regard that prefix as not distinguishing enough. You'd need something > > like 'withThen' or 'withReturning' to help distinguish between the > > two. The problem with 'withReturning' is that it is longer > > (character-wise) than 'with(true)' or just adding 'return it' or 'it' > > to the end of the closure - not that numbers of characters alone > > should be the most important metric. > > > > Cheers, Paul. > -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
