Am 02.08.2011 13:12, schrieb Jochen Theodorou:
> Am 02.08.2011 12:09, schrieb Hamlet DArcy:
>> I had forgotten Guillaume's request to stay quiet until after the
>> holidays. I'm sorry I released this information too soon.
>
> I guess there's no use crying over spilt milk. Instead I want to use the
> opportunity then to start the discussion. Any thoughts?
maybe I start...
Grumpy (project name, not actual name) will type check a Groovy program.
Not all Groovy programs will pass this, so Grumpy will make a real
subset of Groovy. Some things will most probably never compile. Part of
this is the spread operator. Another example would be the regexp
matching, were a Closure can have the number of matching groups as
parameters. I am intending to make an annotation used by Grumpy that can
express types more freely as strings.. for exmaple:
@StaticTyped("TT1(Ljava/lang/Object;Z)","TT1(Ljava/lang/Object)")
Object call(Object... args){...}
showing that even though the Java signature is to take any amount of
parameters and return something of type Object, that we instead define
this method to take an Object as first argument, a boolean as second
optional argument and return the generic type T1. This type information
would overwrite whatever is defined in the real signature... it simply
has to be compatible in the Groovy sense. This way Map#each can be
expressed. This is just a first step for our GDK, not really for all day
use and probably later replaced by something better. Besides this
variation system of signatures, I intend to be as close as possible to Java.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
The Groovy Project Tech Lead
http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/For Groovy programming sources visit
http://groovy.codehaus.org---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Locked
