[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-11492?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18132985#comment-18132985
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on GROOVY-11492:
-----------------------------------------
eric-milles opened a new pull request, #3054:
URL: https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/3054
@daniellansun @paulk-asert Could you have a look at this and let me know if
I'm heading in the right direction? I did mean to get this into 6.0 but missed
the train.
GROOVY-8561 discusses `Closure` or SAM-type array promotion behavior that is
impacted by this change.
The adoc updates are very hastily done to get this to the evaluation stage.
> Java compatibility: array initializers without "new Type[]"
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GROOVY-11492
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-11492
> Project: Groovy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: parser-antlr4
> Reporter: Eric Milles
> Assignee: Eric Milles
> Priority: Major
> Labels: arrays
>
> There are a few cases where bare array initializers are not yet supported:
> # {{int[][] array = \{ \{1,2\}, \{3,4\} \};}}
> # {{@Target(\{ ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.METHOD \})}}
> # {code:groovy}@interface A {
> String[] strings() default {}
> }
> {code}
> These were implemented as part of [1] but the PR was closed. It may be worth
> looking back over what was done and re-implementing one or more of these
> cases. It was noted that {{Closure[] array = \{\};}} is one of the edge
> cases that leads to ambiguity.
> [1] https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/691
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v10.3.26#10030026)
