paulk-asert commented on pull request #1597: URL: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/1597#issuecomment-860615156
> Please see the linked issue ticket. The getter is being used in most cases today, including under static compilation. The few cases that use the isser are outliers and cause confusion. Trying to change it all to prefer the isser is a much bigger change. Yes, I have seen the issue ticket and understand that it is more work. I guess there are lots of ways to look at this. We could say that for this edge case, that anyone that has different behavior between the isser and the getter deserves to experience pain since it makes no sense to make them different. And so our existing code is fine and we can take the smallest steps possible to make our existing code consistent. On the other hand, there is an existing (albeit old) spec which we try to adhere to in most other respects. If we don't like that spec, we could justify why we don't comply with the spec or we can define our own spec and justify why it is different and better than the official one but regardless, Groovy will still break when used with tools which adhere to the spec (for this rare edge case - which is why we haven't seen issues reported before). Given that it's an edge case we hope never to see, I don't see the need to rush to make ourselves less compliant. Instead, I'd prefer to wait and see if any of us has time to explore going down the opposite path. If that does indeed turn out to be a horror path, then we can revisit with a well-informed reasoning behind making ourselves less compliant. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
