P.S. Sorry I see I forgot to add the test for the seconds case (caller side
Map, no such thing at the receiver):
===
1054 ocs /tmp> <q.groovy
def foo(a, b, c) {
println "a:$a b:$b c:$c"
}
foo([a:1], 'Hi', 'there')
1055 ocs /tmp> /usr/local/groovy-4.0.25/bin/groovy q
a:[a:1] b:Hi c:there
1056 ocs /tmp>
===
> On 11. 4. 2025, at 16:12, o...@ocs.cz wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
>> On 11. 4. 2025, at 15:55, Christopher Smith <chrylis+gro...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:chrylis+gro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I personally find it surprising and confusing that arguments are implicitly
>> collected in method calls; I recently was baffled until I realized that the
>> Map as a first argument was causing Groovy to group the leading arguments.
>
> I am not sure what this means. What is a “leading argument”? Can you please
> show an example? With my testing, nothing is grouped (unless one uses named
> arguments, which of course go into that Map):
> ===
> 1052 ocs /tmp> <q.groovy
> def foo(Map m=null, a, b, c) {
> println "m:$m a:$a b:$b c:$c"
> }
> foo('Hi', 'there', '!')
> 1053 ocs /tmp> /usr/local/groovy-4.0.25/bin/groovy q
> m:null a:Hi b:there c:!
> 1054 ocs /tmp>
> ===
>
>> I appreciate Groovy's syntactic sugar for clear cases (such as trailing
>> lambdas), but I would rather not have arguments collected if the signature
>> isn't varargs.
>
> Unless you limit your code by CompileStatic, that's technically impossible,
> since normally caller does not (need to) know the signature of the receiver
> until actually called.
>
> All the best,
> OC
>
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, 05:22 Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au
>> <mailto:pa...@asert.com.au>> wrote:
>> I think it is just the case that Java supports only a single value or
>> array notation, so that's what we did too (just adapting to Groovy
>> array/list notation).
>>
>> We have certainly had folks ask if we could also support the curly
>> brace syntax but that clashes with a closure.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see whether it is a simple or ugly change
>> at the grammar/early parsing level.
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 7:19 PM Gianluca Sartori <g.sart...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:g.sart...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > we use the following well known annotation in our Grails controllers:
>> >
>> > @Secured(['ROLE_USER', 'ROLE_OTHER'])
>> >
>> > I was wondering why we cannot write this instead:
>> >
>> > @Secured('ROLE_USER', 'ROLE_OTHER')
>> >
>> > like in method calls.
>> >
>> > To your knowledge is that a Groovy thing or it lies somewhere else?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Gianluca Sartori
>> >
>
