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 <blackd...@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 >
