[GitHub] [groovy] eric-milles commented on pull request #1661: GROOVY-10278, GROOVY-10281: refactor `CompilerConfiguration` somewhat
eric-milles commented on pull request #1661: URL: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/1661#issuecomment-988005664 Now if the new methods added were `isAtLeastJDK9` and so on and `isPostJDK5`, etc. were removed or scheduled for removal, then my only concern would be the need to add a new method every six months. That kind of work should be automated IMO. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@groovy.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [groovy] eric-milles commented on pull request #1661: GROOVY-10278, GROOVY-10281: refactor `CompilerConfiguration` somewhat
eric-milles commented on pull request #1661: URL: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/1661#issuecomment-987998605 Such as what? If you gave some examples, I might be able to provide reasoning. The purpose of the draft was to discuss these items rather than just be dismissive. I disagree with lifting one-time use values up to the top of a class file. I disagree with adding public API for something that *might* be useful but has no track record of need. These are specific examples that can foster further discussion. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@groovy.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
