Mailing-List: contact users-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@groovy.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALQOHje2Atjj5kr1_B19kUrSdg=uTfzhA5YATE-VEADqkJfewg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALQOHjdxXk7rMVz3q5aVN0X+6T4wBbiyxMUrjZtC-9n1RNtpgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<etPan.565dc98a.23a91d87.15f4@Soerens-MBP-725>
	<CALQOHjeT1BtNrqJs1Zp=ipFJQqNosbMY5YOuXgDkspbvy2eRGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzevgmgiA2hj1r=x5dPtfRHRZW-kAZ7AyrAsLk7u1ncHyaiTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALQOHjf5-Lw=jdwEpjEjy_Rn-QPQu2U1ezP_r+hx_RfqYT75Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<565E1F9F.1090704@gmx.org>
	<CALQOHjcQnxN_Z_J2RPSQw0Sd-U9buv0OUkFPuvijtkk00a35dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<565E2D14.2050709@gmx.org>
	<CALQOHje2Atjj5kr1_B19kUrSdg=uTfzhA5YATE-VEADqkJfewg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:16:29 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADQzvmmf7KB7_t9cb8BegdiDeWZxZg37SE7WG6Zo49OPJLvuPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "External" closures, why?
From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric_Champeau?= <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fad5230a95e0525e5e47f

--001a113fad5230a95e0525e5e47f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I don't think any discussion that is centered around this topic of being
possible to put the closure out of the parens will ever bring anything.
Groovy had it for a long time, and it's one of the main things that make it
suitable for human readable DSLs. Just compare the readability of builders.
If we had to write:

html({
   head({ title('Damn ugly' )})
   body({
      div([class:'main'], { p('foo') })
   })
})

instead of what we can do today:

html {
    head { title 'Groovy' }
    body {
       div(class: 'main') { p 'foo' }
    }
}

No doubt I would never have chosen Groovy to build DSLs.

2015-12-02 1:14 GMT+01:00 alessio <alessino@gmail.com>:

> >
> > yes
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > the problem simply is that while(x, {doSomething()}) looks quite ugly ;)
>
> It absolutely does, agreed (but then all these inlined functions do in
> most languages :) ).
> Nonetheless, while visually maybe not appealing, I'd argue it makes
> semantically more sense to have it in that place than "suddenly"
> outside of the function call.
>
> And yes, I understood that the regular way is still possible, my
> "complaint" was rather about this additional alternative, which really
> left me staring at the screen for a good while today (possibly
> similarly as when I discovered Angular's insanity of using the
> argument names for dependency injection - different subject though).
>
> Anyhow, thanks for having taken the time to explain the details.
>
> >
> > if ultimate means last argument, then yes ;)
>
> It does :)
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> So, just for yet another better understanding, whenever there is a
> code block (-> closure) after a function call, it automatically gets
> appended as additional argument?
>

--001a113fad5230a95e0525e5e47f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t think any discussion that is centered around t=
his topic of being possible to put the closure out of the parens will ever =
bring anything. Groovy had it for a long time, and it&#39;s one of the main=
 things that make it suitable for human readable DSLs. Just compare the rea=
dability of builders. If we had to write:<div><br></div><div>html({=C2=A0</=
div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0head({ title(&#39;Damn ugly&#39; )})</div><div>=C2=A0=
 =C2=A0body({</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 div([class:&#39;main&#39;], { =
p(&#39;foo&#39;) })</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0})</div><div>})</div><div><br></=
div><div>instead of what we can do today:</div><div><br></div><div>html {</=
div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 head { title &#39;Groovy&#39; }</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 body {</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0div(class: &#39;main&#39;) =
{ p &#39;foo&#39; }</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }</div><div>}</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>No doubt I would never have chosen Groovy to build DSLs.</div></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-12-02 1:14 =
GMT+01:00 alessio <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alessino@gmail.co=
m" target=3D"_blank">alessino@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">&gt;<br>
&gt; yes<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; the problem simply is that while(x, {doSomething()}) looks quite ugly =
;)<br>
<br>
</span>It absolutely does, agreed (but then all these inlined functions do =
in<br>
most languages :) ).<br>
Nonetheless, while visually maybe not appealing, I&#39;d argue it makes<br>
semantically more sense to have it in that place than &quot;suddenly&quot;<=
br>
outside of the function call.<br>
<br>
And yes, I understood that the regular way is still possible, my<br>
&quot;complaint&quot; was rather about this additional alternative, which r=
eally<br>
left me staring at the screen for a good while today (possibly<br>
similarly as when I discovered Angular&#39;s insanity of using the<br>
argument names for dependency injection - different subject though).<br>
<br>
Anyhow, thanks for having taken the time to explain the details.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; if ultimate means last argument, then yes ;)<br>
<br>
</span>It does :)<br>
Thanks for the clarification.<br>
<br>
So, just for yet another better understanding, whenever there is a<br>
code block (-&gt; closure) after a function call, it automatically gets<br>
appended as additional argument?<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113fad5230a95e0525e5e47f--