Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Type safety on sum()/getAt()
To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org
References: 
 <CANBeYQTBWDH-0nfGh+jUaNrZ06Ov5gFhqS=PHLnyR+KnSrnF8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumacher@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <5617E579.5020905@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:04:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANBeYQTBWDH-0nfGh+jUaNrZ06Ov5gFhqS=PHLnyR+KnSrnF8A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Peter,

no idea if there are any special issues with updating sum() and getAt(), 
but in general there is room for improvement of parameterised types in 
DefaultGroovyMethods etc. E.g. this pull request: 
https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/pull/610/files adds parameterised 
types to a lot of DefaultGroovyMethods and IOGroovyMethods but it was 
never merged due to lack of tests.

-Pascal

Am 09.10.2015 um 09:54 schrieb Peter Ledbrook:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that @TypeChecked doesn't work so well with typed 
> collections and the sum() & getAt() methods (perhaps others as well). 
> I had a quick look at sum() in DefaultGroovyMethods and noticed that 
> it doesn't use parameterised types, unlike inject() for example.
>
> Would there be any issues with updating sum() and getAt() to work with 
> parameterised types? The current situation makes using @TypeChecked 
> harder than it needs to be.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Ledbrook
> t: @pledbrook
> w: http://www.cacoethes.co.uk/