On 08.11.2016 22:21, Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
Ok, thanks.
So that would make this.x reference works as expected but still x = 1
would work in surprising way. Why to allow creation of new bindings in
this way at all? Reading bindings, fine, but creating new? To share them
with outside world?
because a script "x = 1" is supposed to work out of the box. You could
always have a different script base class.
The behaviour is surprising to me in 2 ways:
First, I do create a new thing even though it "exists".
Binding does not care what already exists.
Second, if I compile it in static way it will behave differently.
and static compilation does not care about dynamic behaviours.
@CompileStatic should behave as I want (I guess), but I can't easily
apply @CompileStatic to a script, can I?
This
http://mrhaki.blogspot.de/2016/01/groovy-goodness-customising-groovy.html and
this
http://mrhaki.blogspot.de/2014/04/groovy-goodness-define-compilation.html might
be interesting to you
bye Jochen
