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 wrote:
> We are always keen for quality contributions. The underlying generics
> issue(s) might be hard to get int
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 gen
Hi Marcin,
As for the generics in Groovy, the issue I mostly wish to fix is
GROOVY-8409 ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8409 ).
Apart from the discussion in the JIRA issue, here is some more thoughts
on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/master/src/main/jav
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
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 no
ping Paul :-)
-
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
Hi all -
Any plans to add wildcards into DGM methods?
—
Daniil Ovchinnikov
JetBrains
