[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16064557#comment-16064557 ]
Dmitri Blinov commented on JEXL-229: ------------------------------------ The difference between a dedicated literal, like Class<String>, and a functor classp("String") in my view is as the difference between literal {code} 1234.33B {code} and its functional equivalent {code} new ("java.math.BigDecimal", "1234.33") {code} the readability, compactness and parse-time checks, which is good for Q&A. The use case I'm after is to get away from now existing functors like {{isMap()}}, {{isCollection()}} {{isSet()}} and to come to more generic type checking. I have overloaded the {{=~}} operator to be used with right-hand {{Class}} instances by calling either Class.isInstance() for objects or Class.isAssignableFrom() for other Classes, for example {code} if (obj =~ klass) {code} so I think we can get along without introducing {{instanceof}} operator, but for the types, as they are very basic Java elements for scripting, like primitives, IMHO, it would be desirable to have a special language construct. > Introduce new syntax for class literals: Class<T> and Type<T> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JEXL-229 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JEXL-229 > Project: Commons JEXL > Issue Type: New Feature > Affects Versions: 3.1 > Reporter: Dmitri Blinov > Priority: Minor > > For the purpose of type checking in jexl, It whould be convenient to have > some simple syntax for referring to class types, like Class<String> or > Type<Boolean>. Literal Class<T> should refer to general classes, and literal > Type<T> should refer to primitive type classes. For literals Class<T> it > could be possible to specify partal class name, which should resolve to > classes in basic packages like java.lang and java.util, for example. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)