Hi guys,
1. We use Mathematica notation for boolean/Boolean
properties/fields/variables in our code, which is to append "Q"
("Question Mark") to the the name
1. e.g. visibleQ, restartQ, ...
2. Advantages are imho:
1. One does not have to use is.../has.../shall... for different
names
2. Maximum brevity...
3. ...while boolean properties/etc are still easy to spot and
cannot be confused with non-boolean-properties
2. Maybe something to consider if one has to refactor anyway due to
this breaking change, if one does not need Java Bean spec
compatibility...
Cheers,
mg
On 23/04/2023 17:44, Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev wrote:
It is described in GROOVY-9382, GROOVY-10133, GROOVY-10707,
GROOVY-10821 and possibly others.
"""
This was an intentional change for Groovy 4. There was much discussion
and it was noted as a breaking change, but may not have been that
prominent in the release notes. There are a few edge cases like
isFirstChild() and getFirstChild() with different return types in W3C
DOM. Your example above illustrates this same case.
Improving the consistency of boolean and Boolean properties in
relation to the Java Bean spec and "developer intuition" (sorry to
have to go there) were primary goals.
"""
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10821
