Thanks Paul, I will keep in mind that there might be more to it than meets the eye when trying to improve generic signatures of DGM methods.
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 9:27 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>>
