Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: SAM type closure coercion
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
References: <CAAsy7bHTAgYRBLr3jY7YGYkEVdmLdFxptzK_a3yPpGi+bPqSLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADQzvmmindDJKJc3dB5d+wUawf65gvBmmZ+j9BbcKHTbY4Rt-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <48A7BAB8-436C-492D-B892-C525A1ECBCD6@selskabet.org>
 <1264538691.1129516.1484739231314.JavaMail.zimbra@u-pem.fr>
 <02b067fb-1cab-5ed2-0574-0d59c38a83ec@gmx.org>
 <CAAsy7bFjiOARBqZ7K01v8PheO+bduffDDkstMtpxhEn6ZSNeNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8e879462-1a56-14d4-5188-5d1f458860fb@gmx.org>
 <CAAsy7bHnnkLPRVvrUF2PeJd=SiPi83V++OLaxz=rMBu96=XAtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
Message-ID: <c3fc7133-db9e-9412-47ae-39a8d64d3df3@gmx.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:19:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAsy7bHnnkLPRVvrUF2PeJd=SiPi83V++OLaxz=rMBu96=XAtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:19:26 -0000

ok, I see... we currently do not make use of that information, but 
could. Only trouble is that we will be "less expressive" than Java for 
these cases.

bye Jochen

On 18.01.2017 14:39, Andres Almiray wrote:
> I meant that { String arg0, int arg1 -> } gives us arity and types,
> whereas { arg0, arg1 -> } only gives arity.
> Also compare { List arg0, int arg1 -> } vs { List<String> arg0, int arg1
> -> }, the former should be doable whereas the latter will prove difficult.
>
> This is what I meant by plain typed arguments. I explained myself badly
> and left out "generics" from the previous message.
>
> Cheers,
> Andres
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
> http://jroller.com/aalmiray
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray
> --
> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
> There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary,
> and those who don't.
> To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org
> <mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 18.01.2017 14:09, Andres Almiray wrote:
>
>         Agreed.
>
>         I almost forgot about the special arity case of defining a
>         closure as {
>         /* do something */ } as it can be called with either 0 or 1
>         arguments,
>         where as { -> } accepts no arguments and { x -> } takes exactly one
>         argument.
>
>         Would it a a good compromise to support plain typed arguments
>         out of the
>         box, that is { String arg0, int arg1 -> } vs { arg0, arg1 -> } ?
>
>
>     nothing prevents you from writing { String arg0, int arg1 -> }
>     today. And yes, we can make that this helps.
>
>     bye Jochen
>
>