Updated State of the Lambda

[John Nilsson]

How about just taking the LINQ names?
I think list.where(...).select(...) is familiar enough to most
Java-programmers.

BR,
John
Den 13 dec 2011 02:02 skrev "Howard Lovatt" <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>:

> I agree that map is not a good fit for Java. In my own
> parallel processing library I use:
>
> retain/recycle/reduce
>
> I like the alliteration as it is easy to remember and in addition to map
> been a problem I have not used filter since it is not clear if filter(true)
> rejects all or accepts all. Although I did use reduce I can see how people
> would prefer combine, I was won over by the alliteration!
>
> On 13 December 2011 06:23, Gernot Neppert <mcnepp02 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Am 12.12.2011 12:21, schrieb Stephen Colebourne:
> > >   int sum = list.map(e ->  e.size()).reduce(0, (a, b) ->  a+b);
> > >
> > > I continue to be concerned about the verbs being used and their
> > > readability. Clearly these terms are used elsewhere, but I continue to
> > > be of the opinion that "map" is the wrong verb for Java, because of
> > > Java.util.Map. My preference currently remains as
> > > "transform/Transformer". Similarly, I think "combine" may be a better
> > > verb than "reduce". With altered verbs, I think the mental shift
> > > required is lessened:
> > >
> > >   int sum = list.transform(e ->  e.size()).combine(0, (a, b) ->  a+b);
> >
> > I endorse your suggestion. I'd also prefer "transform", mainly because I
> > tend to connect the verb "map" mentally with an operation such as the
> > following:
> >
> > interface Collection<E> {
> >  ....
> >
> > public <K,M extends Map<? super K,? super E> M map(Function<? super E,?
> > extends K> mapper, M target);
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>  -- Howard.
>
>