Yannick Loiseau

In the current macro POC, the placeholder argument can be anything that starts with `$`, as long as they sort in the intended order. For instance `f($a + $c -...

Note that explicitly converting the closure fix the problem: ``` golo let a = 1 [1..6]: stream(): map(asFunctionalInterface(Function.class, |v| -> v + a)) # ok [1..6]: stream(): map(asInterfaceInstance(Function.class, |v| ->...

hence the “newcomer” label :smile:

Hi @imshashwataggarwal. If you're not familiar with Java serialization process, you can check [Discover the secrets of the Java Serialization API](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/java/javaserial-1536170.html). Basically, the struct generated classes must implement `Serializable`. A...

For the protected ones, does using `super` instead of `this` solve the problem (just a question, I have never looked at the `AdapterFabric` code)

means go for it :wink:

Maybe in `o.e.g.runtime.MethodInvocationSupport` and `o.e.g.runtime.adapters.AdapterSupport` we should walk the class hierarchy (`getSuperclass().getDeclaredMethods()`) to also find inherited protected method…

The same issue raises with augmentations: ```java package test; public class Super { protected int answer() { return 42; } } ``` ```golo module Test augment test.Super { function foo...

I'd say private methods/fields should not be accessible from augmentations/adapters since it breaks encapsulation and create a coupling on implementation details (except struct private fields which would be useless otherwise)....

`to` or `as` ? ``` golo (|a, b| -> Integer.compare(a, b)): to(Comparator.class) ``` vs. ``` golo (|a, b| -> Integer.compare(a, b)): as(Comparator.class) ```