RE: .with() variant that returns the original object

I agree, assuming that tap is not overloaded in any other popular use or language, it is not likely we would want to define tap in another way. Then we can appease both viewpoints. The other very important reason for with(boolean, Closure) and tap is that unfortunately .with(boolean, Closure)

Re: .with() variant that returns the original object

+1 I like that you provide both .with(true, Closure) and .tap(Closure) Best regards, Søren Berg Glasius GR8Conf Europe organizing team GR8Conf ApS Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Web: www.gr8conf.eu, Skype: sbglasius Company Address: Buchwaldsgade 50, 5000 Odense C, Denmark Personal Address: Hedevej

Re: .with() variant that returns the original object

Sounds good to me! On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Paul King wrote: > Ok, disussion seems to have finished on this topic. I was planning to > merge Christoph's PR with minor tweaks as needed. I was going to use > 'tap' as the name. > > At this stage, unless I hear violent

Re: .with() variant that returns the original object

Ok, disussion seems to have finished on this topic. I was planning to merge Christoph's PR with minor tweaks as needed. I was going to use 'tap' as the name. At this stage, unless I hear violent objections, I was also planning to provide the additional variant that was discussed: with(boolean