Regarding Jochen's
Please don't change the existing behavior of with, that was mentioned once
before, and it breaks backwards compatibility. I use it extensively in DSL
code, here is a fictional DSL example that is similar in what I use it for:
def peopleWhere(Closure c) { people.findAll { it.with(c) } }
def younglings = peopleWhere { age < 35 }
In this example, I use with to avoid the extra boilerplate of cloning the
closure and setting resolve strategy, delegate, and calling it.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 1:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: .with() variant that returns the original object
On 09.11.2016 14:56, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
> My concern about "withThis" is that it implies that "this" is the parameter
> of the closure and not the return. We have for example withReader,
> withWriter, withOutputStream, etc. Those all imply that the parameter is the
> reader, the writer, the output stream. So in my mind, withThis tells me
> nothing at all about the fact that the original object is returned. withThis
> would not be consistent with the rest of Groovy.
I agree with this one.
> .with(returnThis:true) not only has runtime overhead, but keep in mind we are
> comparing this to the current state today, which is .with { return this }, or
> .with { this } depending on your style.
here I have to correct a bit though. Just want to avoid we start discussing the
wrong thing... And I just noticed Paul made the very same mistake in the
original post already. Well, maybe not too late yet
we are talking about
foo.with {
return foo
}
or
foo.with {
return it
}
not about something returning "this" at any point. "return this" would return
neither the open block, nor foo, it would be the enclosing class instance. No
delegate has influence about any explicit this ever.
Ah, and I did just see Jason noticed it in a later mail... well, maybe saying
it two times is better ;)
Anyway, that´s why I think withThis and with(returnThis:true) are not good
variants.
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. It is unlikely somebody
did depend on with returning null.
bye Jochen
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.
