On 11.03.2018 17:29, MG wrote:



On 11.03.2018 14:58, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 10.03.2018 20:33, MG wrote:
Hi Jochen,

I was not aware that Groovy is so sophisticated in its expression analysis, that it actually uses intersection types

you actually do not have much of a choice. It is an AST-only representation only though.

What I meant was: Since Groovy is for instance still using dynamic call site resolution in @CompileStatic mode (see: Minecraft obfuscation problem), it might conceivably also fall back to Object & dynamic resolution in such cases...

the difference is that it is not supposed to do that in static mode ;)

[...]
there is almost no expressions consisting of multiple expression, that we can tell the type of in dynamic mode. Even something simple as 1+1 can in theory return a ComplexNumber suddenly.

We already touched on that topic in the past: I still think that allowing
new Foo()
or
Foo myFoo(...)
to return anything that is not of type Foo is "too flexible", and therefore should be disallowed, or fail.

Afaics Intellisense also operates on the assumption that types given are honored in dynamic Grooy.

Integer foo(int i) {1}
String  foo(String s) {"2"}

def bar (x) {
  return foo(x)
}

at the callsite in bar you cannot tell if foo(int) or foo(String) is supposed to be called. Methods at runtime increase the problem, but it is not unique to them. And it does not always have to be an override in the classic sense either

[...]
 From the view of my framework code that goes even more so for the related case of final x = RHS -> final typeof(RHS) x = RHS I therefore keep going on about - if dynamic Groovy does not pick up the RHS type for final, I need to keep my current code, or force framework users to use @CompileStatic on all Table derived classes, if they want to define table columns in the most elegant and concise way... :-)

for "final x = ..." the exact type of x is in dynamic mode actually totally not relevant. There is no reassignment, so that problem is out here. But if we forget about that, then there is no difference between "final x" and "def x". I know cases where it could make a difference, but they do not exist in Groovy yet. so what exactly is final x supposed to do different than def x besides the reassignment?

class Foo {
    final f0 = new FoorchterlichLongerNome(...) // class field c0 will have type Object; when analyzing the class using reflection, field cannot be found by looking for fields/properties of type Col     final FoorchterlichLongerNome f1 = new FoorchterlichLongerNome(...) // class field will be of type FoorchterlichLongerNome; this is the behavior I would wish for without explicitely being required to give FoorchterlichLongerNome , even in the dynamic case, for simple expressions (as listed above)
}

ah, I was talking about local variables, not about fields/properties. For me that style is more the exception. And once you move the code to the constructor you do not get inference for the field/property anymore. So its good only for some very specific cases. And for those to make a difference in the dynamic mode...

bye Jochen

Reply via email to