On 20.03.2018 16:19, eric.mil...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
Java syntax for a default method value is:
public@interfaceDelegate{
boolean*interfaces*() defaulttrue;
Is there really a need to introduce another form when the saving is
actially 0 characters (colon and equals vs open and close brace)?
class Foo {
fun truth(): Integer = 42
}
vs.
class Foo {
Integer truth() { 42 }
}
I do not think the suggestion was to introduce Kotlin method declaration
syntax (Which looks like JavaScript, and, as I've said before imho makes
little sense in a statically typed language) in general, but "just" the
assignment part instead of giving a code block.
(I always felt that the syntax chosen in Java (and therfore Groovy) for
declaring default paramters in annotations is odd: Why does the
parameter name need to be given looking like a parmeterless method
defintion ? Why do we need a "default" keyword ?
Generally speaking, the syntax does not fit well with existing syntax.
Having:
public@interfaceDelegate{
boolean*interfaces* =true
would imho have made much more sense, since it looks like a class field
initialization (interfaces do not support fields, of course, but in the
long run that is a weak reason to go along the route that was choosen).)
What about the difference in named parameters in annotations vs. methods?
@Anno(name = value)
def foo = bar(name: value)
Could the map-entry syntax be supported for annotations to normalize
named parameters?
I think the unifying aspect here is assignment to
variables/parameters/fields, not naming.
Since no one will suggest that we replace the assignment operator "=" in
Groovy with ":", I think it would therfore be better to move into the
opposite direction, and replace the mape-entry syntax for named
parameters with an assignment syntax (while extending its functionality:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8451) - thereby making it
compatible with assignment in general and the definition of default
parameters.
