jstrachan | 27 Jan 06:13 2005
Picon

Re: [groovy-dev] Re: Closure syntax [[ was [groovy-dev] Pragmatic Groovy Development and Project Management ]]

Martin C. Martin wrote:

> How's this:
> 
> { statements } is a block.  It's just like a Java block, except it can 
> return a value, and it's a first class object.  So in the following, 
> they're all blocks:
> 
> mylist.each { println it }
> mylist.collect { it * it }
> mylist.findAll { it.length > 5 }
> 
> In this case, "it" is bound in the function "each," "collect" or 
> "findAll," before they execute the block.

Ruby has a special mechanism for binding a block/closure to a method. 
Though given that we support optional static typing and expose typesafe 
bytecode - we have to pass the closure as a regular Java parameter - 
rather than having some magical 'block binding'.

So maybe being explict that the block/closure is passed as a parameter 
is the easiest explanation.

> To turn it into a quick, anonymous function, we could wrap it in a def:
> 
> def(String x, Integer y) {
>   statements
> }

Thats a nice syntax for anonymous functions. Given that we've full 
closures, I'm not sure if we need anonymous functions / lambda functions 
- but if we do need them, this is pretty nice syntax.

> Would this distinction between a block and a closure 
> be confusing to people?

I'm not sure I've a great definition for the difference either :). I 
tend to think of a closure as a block which may have explicit parameter 
declarations and which is passed into a method, returned from a method 
or assigned to a variable/parameter.

James


Gmane