[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8992?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17782735#comment-17782735 ]
Eric Milles commented on GROOVY-8992: ------------------------------------- There was discussion in another ticket to add the {{TYPE_USE}} target to {{@ClosureParams}} and {{@DelegatesTo}} so the return type of an annotation attribute method could be tagged. I think the {{METHOD}} target would allow this as well -- but would be wider than the intended use case. A type annotation would allow for a representation that Java can understand. I still feel that this custom syntax is not preferred over enhancements to ClosureParams and DelegatesTo. For example, there is no support for disambiguation in the syntax-based approach. {{each(Map map, @ClosureParams(MapEntryOrKeyValue.class) Closure consumer)}} is a quick example of this added flexibility. > [GEP]Polish the generics type syntax for closure > ------------------------------------------------ > > Key: GROOVY-8992 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8992 > Project: Groovy > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Daniel Sun > Priority: Major > > h2. 1. Background > Currently the syntax specifying the generics type for closure is quite > verbose and not type safe, e.g. > {code:java} > @ClosureParams(value=SimpleType.class, options="groovy.sql.Sql") Closure<V> > closure > {code} > h2. 2. Solutions > ① × I propose to make the above code groovier, but the proposed "arrow > syntax making it hard to read, in particular when the argument types have > generics themselves" reminded by [~melix], e.g. > {code:java} > Closure<groovy.sql.Sql -> V> > {code} > ② √ Suggestions of [~blackdrag] are much groovier for all cases: > {code:java} > Closure<groovy.sql.Sql : V> > {code} > ③ √ In the meanwhile, [~blackdrag] proposed other variants of the generics > type syntax for closure to handle "polymorphic closures (aka closures which > accept different kind of arguments)" reminded by [~melix] > {code:java} > Closure<():R1; (X):R2; (Y, Z):R3> > {code} > ④ ? [~emge] proposed the simplified version of ③. > {code:java} > Closure<R1(); R2(X); R3(Y, Z)> > {code} > h2. 3. Benefits > ① The new syntax of generics type for closure is much more concise and > readable: > {code:java} > Closure<groovy.sql.Sql:V> > {code} > {code:java} > Closure<Sql:V> // qualified name is not necessary if using imports > {code} > *VS* > {code:java} > @ClosureParams(value=SimpleType.class, options="groovy.sql.Sql") Closure<V> > {code} > ② Type checking can be completed in the compilation time, so we can find > errors in time, e.g. {{@ClosureParams(... options="groovy.sql.SqlAbc")}} of > annotation specifies the type with string literal, but the type does not > exist, so we can not the error in the compilation time. On the contrast, > {{Closure<groovy.sql.SqlAbc:V>}} can make compiler help us find type errors > in the compilation time. > ③ Better IDE support because of using the types instead of string literals > for types > h2. 4. Rationale > In order to keep "consistency between using annotations and a type-checking > only feature" reminded by [~melix], I propose to transform the groovier code > to the original code when compiling, e.g. > {{Closure<groovy.sql.Sql:V>}} > will be transformed to > {{@ClosureParams(value=SimpleType.class, options="groovy.sql.Sql") > Closure<V>}} > h2. 5. Discussions in the dev mailing list > [http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-polish-the-generics-type-syntax-for-closure-tt5756586.html] -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)