[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17420023#comment-17420023
]
Paul King edited comment on GROOVY-10259 at 9/24/21, 11:53 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
My main reluctance for adding the {{NameAndValue}} class in the original
proposal was that it was strictly needed for the original use case and it
seemed to have functionality that seemed should be core functionality in a
language. So, let's not put something in place that might not be right for
later use cases. Plus we have some similar classes already:
* {{groovy.util.MapEntry}} but not a {{String}} key (maybe okay)
* {{org.apache.groovy.ginq.provider.collection.runtime.NamedTuple}} but not in
core (might need to move)
I was mainly wanting more feedback on how people used the macros before
starting to develop a more elaborate offering.
was (Author: paulk):
My main reluctance for adding the {{NameAndValue}} class in the original
proposal was that it was strictly needed for the original use case and it
seemed to have functionality that seemed should be core functionality in a
language. So, let's not put something in place that might not be right for
later use cases. Plus we have some similar classes already:
* {{groovy.util.MapEntry}} but not a {{String}} key (maybe okay)
* {{org.apache.groovy.ginq.provider.collection.runtime.NamedTuple}} but not in
core (might need to move)
I was mainly wanting more feedback on how people used the macros before
starting to develop a more elaborate offering.
> Groovy4 NV Macros: Rename NV* -> SV*
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-10259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10259
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Proposal
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0-beta-1
> Reporter: mgroovy
> Priority: Major
>
> According to the release notes
> ([https://groovy-lang.org/releasenotes/groovy-4.0.html]) "stringify" macros
> will be released with Groovy 4, using a NV* naming convention.
> I propose to change the "stringify variable" macro names from
> NV/NVI/NVD
> to
> SV/SVI/SVD
> Rationale:
> * The planned Groovy4 NV macros immediately (G)Stringify their arguments,
> always creating the same fixed textual representation (which cannot be
> processed further in any meaningful way).
> * NV is the macro name I originally proposed (and currently use), but it
> returns a NameAndValue instance (see below for a slightly simplified version
> of my in any case trivial NameAndValue class), instead of directly returning
> a String representation
> ** The NV macro name was chosen since it mirrors the name of the class it
> creates, which holds the stringified expression ("name") that has been passed
> to the NV macro, together with a reference to the result ("value") of
> evaluating said expression, i.e. in the end holds a name together with a
> value.
> ** Note: A 2nd macro, NVL, in my implementation takes multiple arguments and
> creates a list of NameAndValue objects, i.e. NVL(x0,x1,x2) ===
> [NV(x0),NV(x1),NV(x3)]
> *** NV was kept to take only one argument, so additional arguments regarding
> output formatting could be supported in the future.
> * The returned NameAndValue objects can then be used flexibly to process
> further to e.g. create regex expressions, XML, test output, etc (or log/print
> directly if you like).
> * Both approaches by default create the same output when converted into a
> string, namely {code}NV(x) -> "x=$x"{code}
> * The current Groovy4 variety trades flexibility for performance (no
> intermediate NameAndValue objects are created), which is a good thing to have.
> * However it blocks both concepts from coexisting while using a concise, 2
> letter macro name.
> I therefore propose to change the naming convention of the Groovy 4 macros
> from NV* to SV*, since it
> # better expresses what happens ("stringify variable"), and
> # allows for the name & value pairs of the (more flexible/powerful) NV*
> macro and NameAndValue class to coexist with it.
> Basic NameAndValue class:
> {code:java}
> class NameAndValue<T> {
> final String name
> final T val
> NameAndValue(String name, val) {
> this.name = name
> this.val = val
> }
> @Override
> String toString() {
> "$name=$val"
> }
> }
> {code}
> NameAndValue class I actually use (with quote functionality):
> {code:java}
> class NameAndValue<T> {
> final String name
> final T val
> static <T0> NameAndValue<T0> nava(String name, T0 val) {
> new NameAndValue<T0>(name, val)
> }
> NameAndValue(String name, val) {
> this.name = name
> this.val = val
> }
> String quote(final Object o) {
> if(null == o) {
> return null
> }
> else if(o instanceof GString) {
> return '"' + o + '"'
> }
> else if(o instanceof String) {
> return "'" + o + "'"
> }
> else if(o instanceof Character) {
> return "C'" + o + "'"
> }
> else {
> try {
> return o.toString()
> }
> catch(Throwable throwable0) {
> try {
> return
> "NV(${o.getClass().simpleName}.toString() threw
> ${throwable0.getClass().simpleName})"
> }
> catch(Throwable throwable1) {
> return "NV(o.getClass() threw
> ${throwable1.getClass().simpleName})"
> }
> }
> }
> }
> @Override
> String toString() {
> "$name=${quote(val)}"
> }
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
