Hi, It is not random. Preference is always given to the P operators over their traversal counterparts. If there is some random component, we should fix it, but we should always give precedence to P so we are backwards compatible.
Marko. http://markorodriguez.com > On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > > P.not and __.not unfortunately tangle with each other when using static > imports. I think we allowed the console to dictate to us that P.not is the > lucky one that gets to be used without its qualifying prefix. I'm not sure > there was any conscious decision to do it that way. Indeed, I think i would > prefer getting __.not over P.not. I also think that the behavior is sort of > random that we get P.not rather than __.not (for reasons I can go into in > more detail if anyone cares). > > Anyway, I'd like to resolve this issue in 3.3.0. I think that immediately, > I can introduce the breaking change to the console that explicitly imports > __.not rather than P.not - this will remove randomness. In the longer term > we can deprecate P.not and either drop it all together or rename it. I'm > not sure how strongly folks feel about usage of P.not so I guess I'll just > open it up for discussion as to what the long term fix should be here. > > If we don't develop any real consensus here for the longer term option I > will just create an issue in JIRA and it can be dealt with later. I'm > mostly interested in getting a short-term solution in place to solve some > problems I'm facing right now. > > Thanks, > > Stephen
