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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
