Re: Re: immutable list

On 7 Aug 2004, at 14:11, Steven Buroff wrote:

> How about "unmodifiable()"? That would agree with the
> methods in java.util.Collections.

I think the reason we originally went with asFoo() was to emphasise the 
fact that you get a new object back which has been converted. e.g. 
asSynchronized() and asImmutable() etc.

> A personal comment. I have been looking at both groovy
> and beanshell. I'm rather disappointed in groovy's lack
> of interest in being Java-plus.

Certainly we're trying to be better & easier than Java, but I'm not 
sure what Java-plus means?

> Beanshell is much easier
> for an experienced Java programmer to learn and use. I'd
> like to see groovy be Java-plus too albeit with a different
> "plus".  Just one guys opinion. 

I'm not sure what you'd want us to do :) Any suggestions?

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