I'm not convinced we should add more operators. Honestly, I had to read the
description of the "implies" operator to understand what it does. This is
clearly not the case for || or &&, which are "well known" operators.
I am also worried about code becoming ascii art:
{ a -> a => a <= c => d }
So I'm just +0, I don't see that I would use it often enough to mitigate
the drawbacks.
2017-01-26 1:47 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Jochen,
>
> Thanks for your analysis in detail :)
>
> => is a very expressive operator. if we could implement it as
> +(corresponding to plus method) does and apply different business logic
> when necessary, it would be much more useful. And the default
> implementation of "implies" method can be "!a||b".
>
> As to the association of the operator, I prefer the left
> association, i.e. a => b => c is equivalent to (a => b) => c.
>
> The above is the initial plan to implement the "implies" operator.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
> 在 2017年1月26日 上午3:20，"Jochen Theodorou [via Groovy]"
> <ml-node+s329449n5738042h6
> On 25.01.2017 17:50, Daniel Sun 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 :)
>
> If we do this (and I say +1) we should clear some things:
> 1) what does a=>b=>c mean, since (a=>b)=>c is not the same as a=>(b=>c)
> 2) use groovy truth and when to apply it? If we map a=>b to !a||b, then
> it will use Groovy truth on a and b, but if we map to an implies method
> it will get a and b, use groovy truth on them or not and we then maybe
> use groovy truth on the result. I personally would be for not using
> groovy truth here, thus make it more in line with | and &.
> 3) if a=>b is mapped to !a||b we will evaluate a, negate it, and
> depending on the result maybe never evaluate b. As long as a and b are
> free of side effects, that does not play an extremely important role,
> but if we map it to a method a and b will be evaluated always. If we
> would say it is more like !a|b, which would also require both being
> evaluated, then there is still the fact that !a ensures we call here
> always the boolean or function, never one defined by an arbitrary a
> 4) instead of using !a, which converts a to a boolean and negates it, we
> can also use ~a, which is a binary negate also working on booleans, but
> not converting a to a boolean if it is no boolean. Here we have to
> especially think about ~a|b calling "or" on a Pattern if a is a String.
> Also not many things besides boolean and numbers really support
> something useful of the binary negate.
>
> I mention those points so we can make a proper specification for the
> behaviour of this operator ;)
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
> ------------------------------
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-the-implies-operator-GROOVY-2576-
> tp5738035p5738042.html
> To unsubscribe from About the "implies" operator(GROOVY-2576), click here.
> NAML
> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
>
> ------------------------------
> View this message in context: Re: About the "implies"
> operator(GROOVY-2576)
> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-the-implies-operator-GROOVY-2576-tp5738035p5738043.html>
>
> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive
> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html> at
> Nabble.com.
>
