<div dir="ltr">Yes, your point about enumeration is the best way to do it, i guess, I am also voting for this. This makes the most sense considering the way that method invocation chains should be handled</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">вс, 21 апр. 2024 г. в 00:55, David Alayachew <<a href="mailto:davidalayachew@gmail.com">davidalayachew@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I am in full support of this idea. I do also appreciate the functionality of using a BiFunction<INDEX, T, R> on the map method instead of a normal Function<WithIndex<T>, R>.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">As for the actual enumeration logic, my vote is that it should simply enumerate as it arrives, with no context or care given to what came before it. Consider the following examples.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">final List<Integer> list = List.of(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9);</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">System.out.println(list.stream().enumerated().filter((idx, val) -> val % 2 == 0).toList());</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">//0:0, 2:2, 4:4, 6:6, 8:8</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">System.out.println(list.stream().filter(val -> val % 2 == 0).enumerated().toList());</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">//0:0, 1:2, 2:4, 3:6, 4:8</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Enumeration is applied as it arrives, and no sooner. That, I feel, will keep the implementation simplest, and allow the streaming logic to make the most sense. And I added helpful reinterpretations of filter() method (like you did with map()), but I don't think either is necessary.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Of course, the big question looming over all of this is -- does this feature carry its weight? You and I vote yes, but let's see what the community says.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">What do you all think? Is this feature worth it -- with or without some changes?<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 5:07 PM ІП-24 Олександр Ротань <<a href="mailto:rotan.olexandr@gmail.com" target="_blank">rotan.olexandr@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">My proposal regarding findIndex brought up a topic that, as I see, has been brought up here multiple times.<div><br></div><div>My idea is to extend the existing stream interface in the new EnumeratedStream interface. Such an approach has a number of advantages.</div><div><br></div><div>1. Some methods will be able to explicitly specify that they require an enumerated stream.</div><div><br></div><div>2. This would allow us to use an enumerated stream just as the default value stream, if the index is redundant at a certain processing step.</div><div><br></div><div>3. This could help introduce a more user-friendly interface: instead of passing pairs of index and value, they could be passed as separate variables, which will make code more concise.</div><div><br></div><div>Consider following example:</div><div>List.of(1, 2, 3).stream()<br> .enumerated()<br> .map(idx, value -> idx % 2 == 0 ? value : -value);<br></div><div><br></div><div>looks much better than </div><div>List.of(1, 2, 3).stream()<br> .enumerated()<br> .map(pair -> pair.idx % 2 == 0 ? pair.value : -pair.value);<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, I see some caveats with this approach, which relate to parallel streams:</div><div>when a stream is backed by a collection, you might expect assigned indexes to represent order of iteration through collection, especially when talking about sequential collections. Assigning indexes in such streams could be a difficult task in a parallel environment. It should either assign index to a stream elements at the moment when stream becomes parallelized, which is also impossible if already parallelized stream is being enumerated, and also wont work for infinite streams, or make enumerated stream at least partially sequential by passing elements to processing in order they were passed to stream at the first place, which is also hard or maybe even impossible to achieve.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, side note: methods that already accept 2 parameters might become kinda verbose, like reduce that will have to accept for params (idx1, val1, idx2, val2), but i think that is not a big deal</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>