jastrachan | 6 Apr 11:22 2004

Re: Properties

On 5 Apr 2004, at 20:57, Bill Burdick wrote:
> Mike Spille wrote:
>> Well, the only real problem here that I see is interoperability with 
>> Java code and Java tools.  If we were talking about Groovy-only 
>> things you could then generate a name like __setX_gvyProperty without 
>> any problem with collision. Seems like a nit pick, but this is really 
>> the fundamental constraint - how getters and setters look to 
>> extra-Groovy tools and code.  If nothing else, stating this 
>> explicitly can cut down on a lot of potential solutions that won't 
>> fit this requirement.
> I thought the point was to make Groovy properties be the same as Bean 
> properties so that your Groovy objects would show up as beans in 
> Bean-based code/tools.  I mean, isn't the collision intentional?

Agreed. The name-clash is purely intentional :)