On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > > > On 06.10.2016 09:16, Cédric Champeau wrote: >> >> I prefer to support different _methodMissing_ methods taking different >> arguments, because they can participate in method selection and return a >> more specific type. >> >> Something to consider too: @DelegatesTo is not on par with >> @ClosureParams wrt to the types it can express. In particular, it >> doesn't have that "String" representation which supports more complex >> types, in particular the generics (you cannot write >> @DelegatesTo(List<String>). > > > you mean something like if I want to delegate to Foo<Bar>? Because I do not > think we need most of ClosureParams. You won't have parameters for the > Closure and you are usually not interested in the return types. The > information you want to transport (eventually with generics) is the delegate > of course.
Yes that would be a good improvement too. I'm not sure how you express that? Any suggestions Cheers > > bye Jochen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Graeme Rocher
