Thanks for the clarification :) On 28 Apr 2016 02:12, "John Wagenleitner" <john.wagenleit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Mario Garcia <mario.g...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Besides, I was wondering If most, if not all these static methods, should >> have all parameters marked as final. Is there any policy about this ? Would >> it help ? >> > > > I don't think there's a policy, personally I tend to not use final for > local/parameters unless it's used in an anonymous inner class. Hopefully > the methods are short enough that the extra syntax is not needed to know if > it reassigned or not. > > >> >> 2016-04-24 21:46 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>: >> >>> On 24.04.2016 18:12, John Wagenleitner wrote: >>> >>>> About to merge in PR 290 [1] and wanted to do a quick poll to see if >>>> there were any objections since it touches quite a few files across core >>>> and sub-modules. Any objections to merging this into master? And >>>> GROOVY_2_4_X? >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/290 >>>> >>> >>> I guess it is ok. I did see two package private methods made private >>> instead of only private ones, but even those should be ok. so unless I did >>> oversee something I do not really have any objection here. >>> >>> bye Jochen >>> >> >> >
