Re: a plethora of optionals

On 1 Apr 2004, at 16:34, Neil Ellis (Mangala Solutions) wrote:
>>> I think if those were just changed to be non-optional and 
>>> non-ambiguous,
>
> And this is the crux of the matter. If there was a decision in the 
> Groovy
> community - especially from the top that just stated that Groovy was
>
> 'non-optional and non-ambigous'
>
> we'd take a leap forward. Let's have lots of cool features; let's make 
> it
> easier to work in but let's be convinced about the syntax and know for
> certain where places () here or there will work or not.
>
> Yay! Deterministic syntax 

:)

Agreed. I think as part of the JSR process we need to go through each 
of the optional features and debate them and make a choice of whether 
the optionality is actually worth it.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/