+1
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Mario Garcia <mario.g...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 if follows the convention mentioned by Andres > > On 25 Jan 2017 17:58, "Andres Almiray" <aalmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is the "implies" method supposed to work with Groovy Truth or with >> booleans only? >> If the former then this would pose a problem as anyone that has defined an >> "X implies(Y)" method would have access to => >> If the latter then I guess that may not be a proplem. >> >> Assuming "X implies(Y)" would be the convention for => just like "X >> plus(Y)" is for +, and so on. >> >> Cheers, >> Andres >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast >> http://jroller.com/aalmiray >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray >> -- >> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. >> There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, >> and those who don't. >> To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The "implies" operator "=>" was suggested many years ago, here is >>> the >>> replated JIRA issue( GROOVY-2576 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-2576> ) . >>> >>> Do you want it for Groovy 3? (+1: yes; -1: no; 0: not bad) >>> >>> BTW, recently I have been going through the issues related to the >>> old >>> parser, many issues existing for many years do not exist in the new >>> parser >>> Parrot :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel.Sun >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-the-implies-operator-GROOVY-2576-tp5738035.html >>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >
