Re: [IDEA] auto-type coercion thoughts

On 10 Apr 2004, at 13:38, Jon Tirsen wrote:
> Yuri Schimke wrote:
>
>> the return type of the method will guarantee that.
>
>
> But unless you declare the type it won't be there.
>
>> Perhaps a combination of both?
>>
>> GroovyObject has a toType(Class) method, GroovyObjectSupport default 
>> implementation looks for to<Class> methods like toReader, 
>> toBufferedReader etc.
>>
>> This was you could implement toType your self, or just reuse existing 
>> toReader methods by leaving it out.
>
>
> Yes! I really like this. Clean, elegant and customizable.

Agreed. I think implicit conversions are probably bad, but explicit, 
via the cast operator sound like a good idea.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/