groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: About polish the generics type syntax for closure
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:42:01 GMT
On 13.02.19 10:38, Daniel Sun wrote:
> Hi  C├ędric,
> 
>> I'm 100% sure a syntax like that has been discussed in the past
> Well...I missed that discussion...
> 
>> 1. consistency between using annotations and a type-checking only feature
> I propose to transform `Closure<String, Number -> Date>` to the
> annotations(i.e. `@ClosureParams`), so we can keep the consistency.
> 
>> 2. what about polymorphic closures (aka closures which accept different
>> kind of arguments)
> You mean something like `Closure<String, Number -> Date>`?

lets traget complicated overloads.. say you have a method that can take 
a Closure with no arguments, or with 1 argument of type X, or 2 
arguments of types Y and Z... maybe they even return different types.

That is quite a lot to take for a static type system. Which is why most 
type systems do not allow that kind of flexibility. @ClosureParams is 
actually more flexible than many annotations methods in other computer 
programs.... but the syntax is, I agree, not nice. So I do like the 
proposal. I would also suggest something like 
Closure<(String,Number):Date> and Closure<():R1;(X):R2;(Y,Z):R3> for the 
case above (I would probably use multiple lines for that actually).

bye Jochen

Mime
View raw message