I don't think any discussion that is centered around this topic of being
possible to put the closure out of the parens will ever bring anything.
Groovy had it for a long time, and it's one of the main things that make it
suitable for human readable DSLs. Just compare the readability of builders.
If we had to write:
html({
head({ title('Damn ugly' )})
body({
div([class:'main'], { p('foo') })
})
})
instead of what we can do today:
html {
head { title 'Groovy' }
body {
div(class: 'main') { p 'foo' }
}
}
No doubt I would never have chosen Groovy to build DSLs.
2015-12-02 1:14 GMT+01:00 alessio <aless...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > yes
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > the problem simply is that while(x, {doSomething()}) looks quite ugly ;)
>
> It absolutely does, agreed (but then all these inlined functions do in
> most languages :) ).
> Nonetheless, while visually maybe not appealing, I'd argue it makes
> semantically more sense to have it in that place than "suddenly"
> outside of the function call.
>
> And yes, I understood that the regular way is still possible, my
> "complaint" was rather about this additional alternative, which really
> left me staring at the screen for a good while today (possibly
> similarly as when I discovered Angular's insanity of using the
> argument names for dependency injection - different subject though).
>
> Anyhow, thanks for having taken the time to explain the details.
>
> >
> > if ultimate means last argument, then yes ;)
>
> It does :)
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> So, just for yet another better understanding, whenever there is a
> code block (-> closure) after a function call, it automatically gets
> appended as additional argument?
>
