groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Automatic closure coercion and delegate
Date Tue, 17 May 2016 14:19:09 GMT
As an update, I have made an experiment to automatically generate extension
methods that do this. It kind of works and reduces the immediate need for
this. Especially in the context of static compilation. The issue is always
what to choose as the default delegation strategy. While delegate first is
often the one used in DSL, I could also see benefit in using delegate only
in the context of statically generated code...

2016-05-04 7:46 GMT+02:00 Mario Garcia <mario.ggar@gmail.com>:

> +1
>
> 2016-05-03 10:29 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>:
>
>> On 03.05.2016 08:26, Cédric Champeau wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> repositories { // Action<? super RepositoryHander
>>>     maven { Action<? super MavenRepository>
>>>          url '....'
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> I see... I would feel much better if this was done by a special
>> interface, coming from Groovy... maybe even a trait. But I guess this is
>> not really an option.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Doing the same for abstract classes should be straightforward. For
>>> static compilation, it's going to be more complicated and probably
>>> requires transparently invoking a configurer (like Gradle does).
>>>
>>
>> the proxy generation will work the same, I guess you are talking about
>> the direct method calls inside the closure as well es letting it pass
>> static compilation. But I still don't understand what you mean by configurer
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message