collection extensions about beanshell2

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Very good idea.  this would be very useful.  

However I suggest that language enhancements, espeically ones that dont conform 
to 
java specs, be either defered or in a new fork/branch.

Original comment by [email protected] on 9 May 2007 at 12:42

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I can see how this syntax would be useful and convenient.  However, Beanshell 
is a
java-like language, and I don't think that it is such a good idea to be adding
non-java syntax.  

Original comment by [email protected] on 29 Mar 2008 at 1:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I agree that adding a lot of non-java syntax is a bad idea.  But the 2 global 
methods
I suggested here, list() and map(), are possible without any syntax additions 
as long
as we have varargs, which is part of java since jdk 1.5 .  The only addition to
syntax which is suggested is a "=>" binary operator to create Map.Entry 
objects.  And
this is very minor addition, just one more binary operator.

Original comment by [email protected] on 29 Mar 2008 at 5:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Perhaps another command ("pair(key, value)") would be sufficient?

Than you could do

 numberNames = map(pair(1, "one"), pair(2, "two"), pair(3, "threee"));

No new symbols ;)

Original comment by [email protected] on 21 Feb 2011 at 11:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That works but maybe entry is better than pair() as in:

 numberNames = map(entry(1, "one"), entry(2, "two"), entry(3, "three"));

Original comment by [email protected] on 21 Feb 2011 at 3:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> numberNames = map(entry(1, "one"), entry(2, "two"), entry(3, "three"));

vote +1

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 Mar 2011 at 8:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> numberNames = map(entry(1, "one"), entry(2, "two"), entry(3, "three"));

vote +1

numbers = list( 1, 2, 3 );

vote +1

Original comment by [email protected] on 29 May 2011 at 9:42