We are always keen for quality contributions. The underlying generics issue(s) might be hard to get into (though contributions most welcome) but improving the DGM methods can be treated somewhat separately. On a case-by-case basis we can determine whether any change would break things until the generics issue is resolved, whether it might improve meaning for humans (and perhaps even Intellij) but has no improvement for the type checker until the generics issue is resolved, or whether it now actually works fully.
Cheers, Paul. On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 10:48 PM Marcin Erdmann <marcin.erdm...@proxerd.pl> wrote: > If there is willingness to accept contributions in that area then I'd be > happy to give it a shot. I would be much happier myself if the tooling, > especially IntelliJ, had a better chance of understanding the types, > especially when closures are used as arguments, for DGM methods. > > Marcin > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:08 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > >> I presume you mean generics wildcards. There are already some uses. Very >> early on there were some issues with the type checker recognizing some >> wildcard variants, so we avoided adding them. We have made some fixes but >> haven't gone back in many cases and updated the DGM methods to see if they >> can now be improved. >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 1:00 AM Daniil Ovchinnikov < >> daniil.ovchinni...@jetbrains.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all - >>> >>> Any plans to add wildcards into DGM methods? >>> >>> — >>> >>> Daniil Ovchinnikov >>> JetBrains >>> >>>
