groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Statically compileable builders
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:28:11 GMT
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 06.10.2016 09:16, C├ędric Champeau wrote:
>>
>> I prefer to support different _methodMissing_ methods taking different
>> arguments, because they can participate in method selection and return a
>> more specific type.
>>
>> Something to consider too: @DelegatesTo is not on par with
>> @ClosureParams wrt to the types it can express. In particular, it
>> doesn't have that "String" representation which supports more complex
>> types, in particular the generics (you cannot write
>> @DelegatesTo(List<String>).
>
>
> you mean something like if I want to delegate to Foo<Bar>? Because I do not
> think we need most of ClosureParams. You won't have parameters for the
> Closure and you are usually not interested in the return types. The
> information you want to transport (eventually with generics) is the delegate
> of course.

Yes that would be a good improvement too. I'm not sure how you express
that? Any suggestions

Cheers

>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Graeme Rocher

Mime
View raw message