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:

   head({ title('Damn ugly' )})
      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 <alessino@gmail.com>:
> yes


> 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?