Hi Paul,
I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation
woud be better off being called something along the line of
@ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use
@Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then
it would be
Sure thing. Here's a Java example:
void sample(Function fn) {
System.out.println("fn");
}
void sample(Supplier sp) {
System.out.println("sp");
}
These methods can exist side by side, and are called correctly even in cases
of Lambda, eg:
On 13.01.2018 01:00, Nathan Harvey wrote:
On the other hand, lambdas are superior for functional programming because
they can be differentiated with Java 8's functional type classes quite
easily.
Could you give an example on what exactly you mean by that, and in what
sense you see them as be
One of the largest reasons I found myself preferring Groovy over Java is the
quasi-final scoping restrictions of Lambdas. Please do not let this behavior
exist in Groovy. It makes functional programming very hard.
On the other hand, lambdas are superior for functional programming because
they can
Am 12.01.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Russel Winder:
On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 05:54 -0700, Daniel.Sun wrote:
[…]
As you see, the latest implementation is to generate method for lambda
at the class generation stage, in addition new inner classes will be
generated for each lambda.
[…]
I haven't
Am 12.01.2018 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Sun:
Hi Jochen,
but I think you should then not use the closure inner class mechanism.
I remain the implementation for non-native lambda[1] to make lambda work in
legacy code, where closures are widely used. For example, `[1, 2,
3].collect(e -> e + 1)`
On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 05:54 -0700, Daniel.Sun wrote:
>
[…]
> As you see, the latest implementation is to generate method for lambda
> at the class generation stage, in addition new inner classes will be
> generated for each lambda.
>
> […]
I haven't read the code, I am reacting to the above
Am 12.01.2018 um 14:13 schrieb Daniel.Sun:
Hi Jesper,
The bytecode generation for lambda of the current implementation
should be somehow same with javac does, because I reference the ASM code,
which is decomplied from bytecode generated by javac.
If you have some spare time to c
Hi Jochen,
> I did also not understand the innclass attribute visit...
I've cleaned up the useless code:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/commit/6aeaa1c5a7863af5d2c126a5bdf9da9aff2a8db6
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Hi Jochen,
> but I think you should then not use the closure inner class mechanism.
I remain the implementation for non-native lambda[1] to make lambda work in
legacy code, where closures are widely used. For example, `[1, 2,
3].collect(e -> e + 1)`
> I thought you need that only to enable reflec
Hi Jesper,
The bytecode generation for lambda of the current implementation
should be somehow same with javac does, because I reference the ASM code,
which is decomplied from bytecode generated by javac.
If you have some spare time to contribute, glad to work with you again
;-)
Cheer
Hi Jochen,
Thanks for your reviewing the code. They are a bit old because I pushed
the latest commit this afternoon :-)
As you see, the latest implementation is to generate method for lambda
at the class generation stage, in addition new inner classes will be
generated for each lambda.
Hi Jochen and Daniel
> On 12 Jan 2018, at 12.48, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 12.01.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Daniel Sun:
>> Hi Nathan,
>>> What's will the differences be between closures and lambdas?
>> The native lambda will have better performance than closure. In addition,
>> native lamb
Am 12.01.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Daniel Sun:
Hi Nathan,
What's will the differences be between closures and lambdas?
The native lambda will have better performance than closure. In addition,
native lambda, which conforms to Java specification, is less versatile than
closure, which is really p
14 matches
Mail list logo
