On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > The syntax is not new, Groovy had this kind of "attached block" since pre > Groovy 1.0 times.
Alright, I did just run the code with against 2.0 (which was supposed not to support it) and it ran just fine. But then, what does the documentation refer to when it says one can omit an explicit coercion as of 2.2? > > This kind of block usage w Something is missing here. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Owen Rubel <oru...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I can help a little... Thanks, appreciated! > > This is especially useful if it is something like a method call that only > gets called once. Why create a method for it? Just use a closure. :) > > Closures provide tons of convenience over methods. They are not meant to > replace them at all but act as a convenience method In my understanding that is just a function pointer (good old C :) ) or - if one likes it better - an anonymous function or - if someone likes the Java term better :) - a lambda. So far so good, the concept itself is not that much of a problem, the thing that I was simply wondering (and which confused the heck out of me :) ) is the choice to support mentioned form of passing the closure, which IMVHO could be utterly confusing, as the passed function is VISUALLY not part of the function call but "dangling" somewhere near it. Thanks again!
