Re: [groovy-dev] The opposite of builders

John Rose wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2005, at 10:59, Mark Chu-Carroll wrote:
>
> BTW, I suspect this will turn out to be a 2.0-type feature (like, maybe, 
> macros) which the 1.0 design needs to anticipate and leave room for.  
> 2.0 sometimes means "never in our professional lifetime", but in the 
> case of Groovy, we ought to be able to design 2.0 in parallel with the 
> current design, as long as the futures don't derail us from dealing with 
> our present problems.

Agreed! We need to keep an eye on annotations/macros and the like - we 
need to fix 1.0 ASAP but should make sure we leave wiggle room for 2.0

James