I'm not understanding how inlining a closure expression could help reduce the
burden of saving state to a temporary variable and then restoring it after
execution, unless there was some additional AST processing.
macro method take 2:
class Foo {
def bar() {
push { field1 = value, field2 ->
baz()
}
}
}
macro method take 1 -- I think this would have better IDE support:
class Foo {
def bar() {
push (field1 = value, field2) {
baz()
}
}
}
An alternative to the macro method would be a local transform. A variable
declaration would allow an annotation. So maybe something like this could be a
more general capture-restore:
@CaptureRestore({ -> ... })
def (one, two) = [field1 = value, field2] // maybe "_" or something would
prevent the need for typing temp var names.
converts to
def one = field1
def two = field2
one = value
try {
...
} finally {
field1 = one
field2 = two
}
This idea has the code to execute come before the state capture and update,
which is not the best IMO. Especially if "..." represents a lot of code. To
flip it, the closure could be assigned to something:
@CaptureRestore({ field1 = value, field2 })
def ___ = { ->
...
}
