I know, that I depend on a with{} returning what I make it return, so
making it return null or another value would be bad.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 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark --- GR8Conf - Dedicated to the Groovy Ecosystem From: OC <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Reply: [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Date: 9. november 2016 at 20.33.17 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: Re: .with() variant that returns the original object Jochen, On 9. 11. 2016, at 19:44, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Also it should be noted that we already have an alias for "with", which is "identity". I would not want to have yet another one. > Frankly... I think we should change what it returns. whilst I agree too many aliases is a bad thing, in my personal opinion, breaking backward compatibility is worse. > It is unlikely somebody did depend on with returning null. I might be wrong as so often, but I can well imagine somebody depends on the current behaviour, which, far as I understand, is not returning null, but returning the result of the last expression in the closure -- precisely what I would myself like to be available in future as "resultWith". All the best, OC
