groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: "External" closures, why?
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:28:20 GMT
Am 02.12.2015 um 00:17 schrieb alessio:
>>
>> should work in any Groovy version. The difference here is that for this to
>> work we can use any class being a parent to groovy.lang.Closure plus the
>> class itself of course. In the case here I did not give a type, which is
>> equal to using the base type of all types in Java and Groovy, which is
>> java.lang.Object
>
> Thanks for the clarification, this also seems to go along with what
> Jason wrote before.
>
> Could you just confirm if my previous summary below is correct then?
> If so I guess I understood what 2.2 introduced ...
>
>    "So before 2.2 the cast was necessary in order to satisfy the method
>    signature argument-wise, with a single Object argument being the
>    default (and hence not requiring a cast)?"

yes

[...]
> Purely from a personal point of view I'd probably stay away from sugar
> coating user-level functions to mimic native language elements as in
> the given example but then, I am not a language designer :)

the problem simply is that while(x, {doSomething()}) looks quite ugly ;)

On a side note: I actually strife to reduce native language elements 
where it makes sense. Of course I don't want another Lisp as well. Not 
that I finde Lisp bad, it is just nothing for the Java/Groovy world.

> Could you please just let me know if my previous assumption below is
> correct as well?
>
>    "it only works if the method expects the closure as ultimate argument.
>    In that case it can be appended outside, otherwise not."

if ultimate means last argument, then yes ;)

bye Jochen


Mime
View raw message