Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > Try to see the big picture :) I was showing a simple example; method > handles are typed just like anything else, and so you should be able to > adapt any set of arguments to any other set of arguments. And yes, I > could also see a flyby pattern where you specify converters for specific > arguments in the list as well, so you'd have an "int" converter handle > you specify for argument N. You'd do the construction of that adapter > once based on the set of incoming arguments, and from there you'd be all > set.
It's probably also worth mentioning that while Ruby to Ruby calls do no conversion of any kind (and are pretty much straight through, resulting in pretty solid Ruby execution performance), we have the same challenges as Groovy when calling out to normal Java types. Specifically, we have various type conversions we want to do, closures we want to convert to interface implementations, and similar features that could only be handled by nicely composable method handle adapters. I'm definitely looking forward to using them. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
