If we know the desired target type of a closure, and the parameters are compatible, we could generate a Closure class which implements the applicable Functional Interface (such as Function<A,B>, Predicate<Thing> or whatever). For static Groovy, we could then skip the coercion.
-Jesper > On 13 Feb 2019, at 18.40, Daniel.Sun <sun...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Jochen, > > I really like your suggestion! which can solve all problems caused by > closure's versatility. > > Groovy is groovy because it is Groovy, i.e. not another Java. Closure > is a killer feature in Groovy, so it's better to refine it if possible ;-) > > P.S. another crazy proposal, make closure based on native lambda in > all cases... then closure will be much thinner and should gain better > performance. > > Cheers, > Daniel.Sun > > > > > ----- > Apache Groovy committer > Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me > Twitter: @daniel_sun > > -- > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
