40 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.userRe: [groovy-user] Re: Acceptable Plac...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 3, 2007 3:41 pm | |
| Stand Trooper | Dec 3, 2007 4:03 pm | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 3, 2007 4:07 pm | |
| Stand Trooper | Dec 3, 2007 4:34 pm | |
| Russel Winder | Dec 3, 2007 9:46 pm | |
| Russel Winder | Dec 3, 2007 9:49 pm | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 3, 2007 9:52 pm | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 3, 2007 10:10 pm | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 4, 2007 5:59 am | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 4, 2007 10:59 am | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 4, 2007 11:51 am | |
| Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA | Dec 4, 2007 1:10 pm | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 4, 2007 1:24 pm | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 4, 2007 1:29 pm | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 4, 2007 1:54 pm | |
| Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA | Dec 4, 2007 2:33 pm | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 4, 2007 2:44 pm | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 4, 2007 2:56 pm | |
| Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA | Dec 5, 2007 6:35 am | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 5, 2007 10:16 am | |
| Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA | Dec 5, 2007 10:29 am | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 5, 2007 5:45 pm | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 7, 2007 8:31 am | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 7, 2007 8:37 am | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 7, 2007 8:49 am | |
| Guillaume Laforge | Dec 7, 2007 9:01 am | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 7, 2007 9:14 am | |
| Guillaume Laforge | Dec 7, 2007 9:16 am | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 7, 2007 9:22 am | |
| Guillaume Laforge | Dec 7, 2007 9:28 am | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 7, 2007 10:09 am | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 7, 2007 10:11 am | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 7, 2007 10:18 am | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 7, 2007 10:31 am | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 7, 2007 12:23 pm | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 7, 2007 12:37 pm | |
| Charles Oliver Nutter | Dec 7, 2007 1:35 pm | |
| Randall R Schulz | Dec 7, 2007 1:40 pm | |
| Gavin Grover | Dec 7, 2007 11:49 pm | |
| Jochen Theodorou | Dec 8, 2007 3:40 am |
| Subject: | Re: [groovy-user] Re: Acceptable Placement of default: Within Switch? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jochen Theodorou (blac...@gmx.org) | |
| Date: | Dec 7, 2007 9:14:09 am | |
| List: | org.codehaus.groovy.user | |
Guillaume Laforge schrieb:
Furthermore, on all the usual Java usages of switch / case, they work exactly the same in Groovy. So I don't see why we would not be allowed to use the same syntax, to ease the transition for Java developers.
because a Java switch/Case does not work like a Groovy switch/case. In Java a case can take only int compatible constants, in Groovy it can take expressions. In Java all cases share a scope, in Groovy each case has its own scope. In Groovy we call the isCase method, in Java it has to be a number we switch with. If we for example use a closure as case, then this might cause side effects. There are cases where we can let them behave the same and usually when using the java version you won't see a difference in Groovy besides the placement and logic of default.>
bye blackdrag
-- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org) http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ http://www.g2one.com/