[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10863?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17645627#comment-17645627
]
Eric Milles edited comment on GROOVY-10863 at 12/10/22 2:30 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide examples of each proposed addition? Would it be better to use
Java's {{Function}} instead of Closure? Or is there a scenario where you need
the flexibility of variable signatures or delegation?
was (Author: emilles):
Can you provide examples of each proposed addition? Would it be better to use
Java's {{{}Function{}}}}} instead of Closure? Or is there a scenario where you
need the flexibility of variable signatures or delegation?
> Provide some additional Closure join variants
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-10863
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10863
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Paul King
> Priority: Major
>
> The idea (initiated on Slack) is to add in some join variants which take a
> Closure which does an additional transformation during join processing.
> Two possible implementations are:
> * the transform is essentially a "collect" on each element before traditional
> joining happens with some supplied delimiter - this is similar to what we do
> in other cases like the "sum" variant with a Closure and also what makeString
> in Eclipse Collections does
> * the transform embodies the whole join aspect, essentially becoming an
> inject and replacing the supplied delimiter
> We could support variants for both depending on whether the delimiter
> parameter was present.
> Other variations are whether start/end (or prefix/suffix) parameters would be
> supplied and potentially also direction (think foldl vs foldr).
> If we end up wanting to support all variations, we could provide a named
> parameter (map) version of the method.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
