What I meant was: What sense does letting void methods be called make
for the dynamic case, i.e. the dynamic compiler ? From a programmer's
perspective, i.e. what is a programming use case for that
feature/behavior, in dynamic Groovy ?
Of course I can do the following in dynamic Groovy:
// Groovy 2.5.0
class Goo {
//void nogoo() { return 123 } // Dynamic Groovy compiler:
RuntimeParserException: Cannot use return statement with an expression on a
method that returns void
void nogoo() { 123 }
}
final goo = new Goo()
println "original: goo.nogoo()=${goo.nogoo()}"
goo.metaClass.nogoo = { return 456 }
println "mopped: goo.nogoo()=${goo.nogoo()}"
Which will build, run, and output
original: goo.nogoo()=null
mopped: goo.nogoo()=456
i.e. returning 456 from a void method in the second case.
But if I am using a library that includes the Goo class, why would I
ever expect a return value from the nogoo method (and therefore call
it), considering its return type is void ? And if I control the Goo
class myself, why would I not just change its return type to int or def ?
Cheers,
mg
On 03.09.2018 22:36, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 03.09.2018 17:13, mg wrote:
But in what scenario does the dynamic behavior make sense ?
for a static compiler? none other than being compatible
bye Jochen
