<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>And another thing I realized after writing that E-Mail, the
"initializer" parameter is called</p>
<p>> the supplier function for the new gatherer</p>
<p>I am unsure about the name "supplier function". After all, it is
already named initializer so why not use the name initializer
(function) instead of supplier function?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.11.2023 um 10:35 schrieb Viktor
Klang:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MW4PR10MB5774C2862C8DD8F0402EB33BFFBBA@MW4PR10MB5774.namprd10.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"
class="elementToProof">
Thanks for the feedback -- I agree that could be improved.</div>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"
class="elementToProof">
I'll address this in the PR/CSR shortly.<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Cheers,<br>
√</div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b><br>
</b></div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>Viktor Klang</b></div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Software Architect, Java Platform Group<br>
Oracle<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%;">
<b>From:</b> jdk-dev on behalf of Daniel Schmid<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:31<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jdk-dev@openjdk.org">jdk-dev@openjdk.org</a>; Mark Reinhold<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JEP proposed to target JDK 22: 461: Stream
Gatherers (Preview)
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">When reading the type parameters of
the <br>
"Gatherer.of"/"Gatherer.ofSequential" methods, I
realized that the type <br>
parameter for the intermediate state is documted as<br>
<br>
> the type of initializer for the new gatherer<br>
<br>
While not being wrong, it looks a bit confusing to me as
it refers to <br>
the intermediate state which is also used by the
integrator, that type <br>
parameter is not exclusive to the initializer.<br>
<br>
Is there a reason it is not called<br>
<br>
> the type of intermediate state for the new
gatherer<br>
<br>
or something similar?<br>
<br>
Am 20.11.2023 um 17:17 schrieb Mark Reinhold:<br>
> The following JEP is proposed to target JDK 22:<br>
><br>
> 461: Stream Gatherers (Preview)<br>
> <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/461"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
data-auth="NotApplicable"
id="OWA215bce81-2c68-4309-7fe2-4c1580b30585"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-loopstyle="linkonly" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://openjdk.org/jeps/461</a><br>
><br>
> Summary: Enhance the Stream API to support
custom intermediate<br>
> operations. This will allow stream pipelines to
transform data in ways<br>
> that are not easily achievable with the existing
built-in intermediate<br>
> operations. This is a preview API.<br>
><br>
> Feedback on this proposal from JDK Project
Committers and Reviewers [1]<br>
> is more than welcome, as are reasoned objections.
If no such objections<br>
> are raised by 20:00 UTC on Wednesday, 29 November,
or if they’re raised<br>
> and then satisfactorily answered, then per the JEP
2.0 process proposal<br>
> [2] I’ll target this JEP to JDK 22.<br>
><br>
> - Mark<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://openjdk.org/census#jdk"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
data-auth="NotApplicable"
id="OWA83f48f92-7344-2282-7992-5a70549be80a"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-loopstyle="linkonly" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://openjdk.org/census#jdk</a><br>
> [2] <a
href="https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
data-auth="NotApplicable"
id="OWA0b12522b-e641-a3c3-396c-0b1dcc586478"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-loopstyle="linkonly" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>