John Cowan wrote: >> Depending on your schema of call types, you'll want to choose between >> grouping call types on interface types vs. one call type per interface >> type. > > Since the arguments and returns are all Object, I think all I need is > one class per arity: Function0, Function1, Function2, ... FunctionN, > which last takes an Object[] of arguments. >
I'd recommend having a Function<ARG_T extends ArgumentType> and abstract away the argument typing. ~~ Robert Fischer. Grails Training http://GroovyMag.com/training Smokejumper Consulting http://SmokejumperIT.com Enfranchised Mind Blog http://EnfranchisedMind.com/blog Check out my book, "Grails Persistence with GORM and GSQL"! http://www.smokejumperit.com/redirect.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
