Re: some things about Closure

On 7/15/26 15:55, Paul King wrote:
> AI read of your response below. It suggested a whole pile of changes
> to make "on-by-default" work - I need some review time still, but it's
> comments included below.
No need to hurry I think. Better do it slow and right. We cannot afford=20
redesigning this with every major version - not if it means new=20
constructs and potentially breaking changes.

My Goal would be OpenClosure as new default construct at some point.=20
Closure and OpenClosure can coexist, Closure wrapping OpenClosure=20
essentially. Maybe even with a SAM-style mechanism to autoconvert. Also=20
since a Closure has an OpenClosure in its core, we could move the API to=
=20
the new class. I am aware of that I suggest a major change in an=20
essential part of Groovy. But I am having this kind of stuff in the back=
=20
of my head for years now and finally I can let it out - thanks to AI ;)

bye Jochen