[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8276?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16114434#comment-16114434
]
Jochen Theodorou commented on GROOVY-8276:
------------------------------------------
frankly I think returning Closure is the right thing to do here. The same as
def a = "$x" shouls use GString as type for a and not GStringImpl. It is an
implementation detail that this Closure is a MethodClosure and unless for good
reasons I would like to keep it like that. So yes, this would fail static
compilation.
But maybe if you explain a bit more. Why is it not enough for you to use
Closure here?
> `.&` should return `MethodClosure` instead of just `Closure`
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-8276
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8276
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Compiler
> Reporter: Vladimír Oraný
>
> if you get method handle using `.&` notation the retrieved object is of type
> `Closure`. It should be method closure instead. Following code should compile:
> {code}
> @CompileStatic
> void doSomething(MethodClosure methodClosure) {
> this.doSomething(this.&doSomething)
> }
> {code}
> One of the use cases I'm currently working on is a type-safe DSL which
> accepts method closure to test given method. I would like to be sure that
> none passes in regular closure. At the moment, I need to do
> {code}
> if (!(method instanceof MethodClosure)) {
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Closure must be method
> closure. Use object.&methodname to get type safe method closure!")
> }
> {code}
> To achieve similar behavior.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
