[groovy-jsr] Re: The Groovy Language Specification
>> I've been revisiting the Groovy specifications, trying to make
>> it into a readable, usable document. One decision that seems
>> fairly critical is that of using full specification text, rather than
>> being a 'diff' of the original Java Language Specification.
> By critical you mean that a factored (diff-based) specification will fail?
> Or that a decision is needed now to avoid useless work?
<snip initial draft comments>
Thanks for your comments, I was putting my toe in the water, trying
to prevent doing too much work in the wrong direction.
>> My quandary is that Groovy is trying to be as close to the Java platform
>> as possible, and the rigour of the JLS spec should be applied to the
>> Groovy platform too. But in doing so I do not want to create a GLS
>> that we cannot publish due to copyright concerns.
> I'm sure we can get rigor enough (at least for 1.0) with a factored
> I would be surprised to see any evidence to the contrary.
I've performed a real diff of my work and the JLS, and have fed
this back, along with your document (up till section 3.9) into
a new document at
Re: [groovy-jsr] Re: The Groovy Language Specification
On 21/11/05, Jeremy Rayner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've performed a real diff of my work and the JLS, and have fed
> this back, along with your document (up till section 3.9) into
> a new document at
> http://groovy.codehaus.org/jsr/spec/Chapter03Lexical-Proposal.html >
> Hopefully this is closer to the final form of the GLS.
> I'd be interested in your thoughts on this layout, and content.
Though I felt a full standalone GLS would have been better, I like
very much your approach with the "+", "-", and "!" icons to notify
about differences. The text is short and to the point, but shows how
we differ from Java.
I think this format is promising :-)
Thanks a lot for your work on the GLS, Jeremy.
Not an easy task ;-)
> Though I felt a full standalone GLS would have been better, I like
> very much your approach with the "+", "-", and "!" icons to notify
> about differences. The text is short and to the point, but shows how
> we differ from Java.
I agree with Guillaume, if we could use the JLS as a basis for the GLS
text, that would be great, but this format works for me. It is entirely
reasonable to expect people reading the GLS to also have a copy of the
JLS open in front of them.
The convention of (+), (-) and (i) encourages brevity, which is a very
good thing in a specification. I'd find an (=) icon to mark unchanged
It would be good to do Chapter01 next, and include in it a note on the
conventions for specifying diffs.
The only other option I can think of is to check-in machine-generated
diffs against the downloadable version of the JLS. GLS readers would
then have to download the JLS and merge the diffs to get the GLS.
However, I can think of several issues with this, including problems
> I think this format is promising :-)
Unless there's some other format that we can all agree is clearly
better, I think we should adopt this proposed format.