On 19.10.2016 12:26, Cédric Champeau wrote:
2016-10-19 10:51 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org <mailto:blackd...@gmx.org>>: On 19.10.2016 09:09, Cédric Champeau wrote: First of all, great work, Daniel ! I'm confident that making the "lambdas" be "closures" in Groovy is enough. I think it won't be enough for :: and MethodClosures. Actually, Daniel, are those supported in the new Grammar and what are they mapped to? That's correct. I would really love to have _real_ method mapping for :: in the static compiler. This is obviously not possible for the dynamic runtime. One option, if we want to make it possible to optimize from the static compiler is to have a new AST node, MethodPointer, that would be interpreted as a MethodClosure, and potentially optimized by the static compiler later as a method pointer.
why should the exsiting node for a MethodClosure not be used for that? The static compiler can still optimize that version, or not?
bye Jochen
