Jochen's example never required a cast in any Groovy version because his method took Object (a super type of Closure).
Had Jochen defined an interface, and defined the method to take the interface instead of Object or Closure, then before 2.2 an explicit cast from Closure to the interface type would have been required. After 2.2, Groovy implicitly converts the Closure to the interface type without the cast. Jason -----Original Message----- From: alessio [mailto:aless...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:05 PM To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: "External" closures, why? On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Winnebeck, Jason <jason.winneb...@windstream.com> wrote: > The explicit cast was needed before 2.2 only when you were trying to cast a > Closure to an instance of an interface (or other SAM type). In my example, > the closure implicitly can be casted to type X after 2.2. Before 2.2, you had > to explicitly cast the closure to X. > > Jochen's example worked because he didn't declare the type of his parameter. > When no type is declared, "Object" is used, which will take the Closure > directly. So before 2.2 the cast was necessary in order to satisfy the method signature argument-wise, with a single Object argument being the default (and hence not requiring a cast)? Did I get that right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.
