I wanted to keep my mail concise, but also aliasing Bool = Boolean was more or less implied, for consistency & brevity reasons. I would also think that Java would introduce Int = Integer, or use int = Integer in that case... -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> Datum: 23.07.18 10:22 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: bool On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:39 +0200, MG wrote: > Hi, > > since things are going so well with my "fin" = "final" proposal, I > propose that Groovy support "bool" as a shortcut for "boolean". > > "boolean" is already seeing large scale use by Groovy developers, > "bool" > instead of "boolean" saves nearly half of the keyword's characters, > "bool" is used in C++, it fits better with the also widely used > "int", > and Groovy 3.0 is the ideal opportunity to introduce such language > extensions. >
Isn't the long term intention to remove all primitive types from languages compiling to the JVM? Instead of int people are supposed to use Integer, instead of boolean people are supposed to use Boolean, and leave all the optimisation to the JVM. Is there any point in fiddling with Groovy primitive type names in this context? -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
