You know, I bet that could be done with an ast transformation. Using it
could look like this:
@RequiredConstructorParameters(parameters = ['a'])
class Foo {
String a
String b
}
On Apr 18, 2016 2:33 PM, "Winnebeck, Jason" <jason.winneb...@windstream.com>
wrote:
> I think Groovy is limited here to the JVM's features. It is not possible
> to implement named parameters properly since you don't know the method
> names (except when using an optional compiler param in Java 1.8+), so there
> is not truly named parameters in Groovy. Instead, all of the named
> parameters are converted into a Map. And Groovy does allow positional and
> named parameters in the same call, where all of the named parameters are
> collected into a single map.
>
> As far as I know the best solution for enforcing the named parameters is
> just to check for their presence in the map manually in the function itself.
>
> The only place I see in Groovy where "named parameters" actually works
> well is when constructing an object -- the names parameters all turn into
> setter calls. It is possible to abuse this so that Groovy code would fail
> when trying to set non-existant parameters, but it doesn't solve the
> required parameters issue without manual code. It also has the benefit of
> code completion in IDE and type checking. Specifically I am talking about:
>
> class FooCall {
> String a
> String b
>
> void call() {
> if (!a || !b)
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("a and b are required");
> println "call $a $b"
> }
> }
>
> new FooCall(a:"a", b:"b")()
>
> However, the code is very awkward. That's not much better than:
>
> REQ_PARAMS = ['a', 'b'] as Set
> ALL_PARAMS = REQ_PARAMS + ['c'] as Set
>
> void foo(Map params) {
> params = params ?: [:]
> if (!params.keySet().containsAll(REQ_PARAMS))
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Missing required parameters
> ${REQ_PARAMS - params.keySet()}")
> if (params.keySet() - ALL_PARAMS)
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Extra parameters ${params.keySet()
> - ALL_PARAMS}")
>
> println "foo $params"
> }
>
> foo(a:1, b:1, c:1)
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David M. Karr [mailto:davidmichaelk...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 1:50 PM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Required named parameters in constructor?
>
> First of all, I'm not attempting a "Groovy vs. anything else" argument, so
> put away the flamethrowers. I find myself defending Groovy when I have the
> chance.
>
> I was, however, reading a Ruby book, as I've never looked at it before, as
> I found I had to learn about Puppet, and I concluded that you can't work
> effectively with robust Puppet modules without understanding Ruby.
>
> As a result, I found myself paying attention to to how Ruby features map
> to Groovy. I'm not talking about syntax, just functional features.
>
> I got to the point in the Ruby book where it mentioned that you could set
> particular keyword parameters (like Groovy Named Parameters) to be
> required. I can't think of a "direct" way to map this to Groovy. I
> suppose you could implement an "ad hoc" strategy that throws if particular
> values aren't set. Is there a more concise way?
>
> Just as an observation, I also note that Ruby allows mixing both
> "positional" and "named" parameters in the same constructor call.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message and any attachments.
>
