marko, i didn't realize that choice was intentional. ok - guess i'll keep hating my life then....
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
