RFR: CR#8004561 : Additional Functional Interfaces and Updates

[Brian Goetz]

Yes, this is a deliberate u-turn that comes as a result of the 
unexpected interactions with the overloading resolution rules.

By having DoubleBlock extending Block<Double>, we created problems for 
overloading.  For example, consider this expected-to-be-common 
overloading in Bunch<T>:

   <U> Bunch<U> transform(Function<T,U> transformer)
       IntBunch transform(IntFunction<T> transformer)

There are some conflicting rules in overload selection:
  - prefer more-specific SAMs to less specific (favors IntFunction)
  - prefer less boxing/unboxing

What we'd like is to choose the former when the "natural" type of 
transformer is T -> Integer and the latter when the "natural" type is T 
-> int.  But, because the more specific rule has higher priority, we 
would coerce a T -> Integer into a T -> int (with unboxing) all the time.




On 12/20/2012 9:07 PM, Howard Lovatt wrote:
> 1. DoubleBlock doesn't extend Block<Double> and doesn't have a default
> method, similarly int and long
> 2. Similarly all the rest like Function aren't extended
>
> Is this the correct link - it seems to have gone backwards?
>
>   -- Howard.
>
>
> On 21 December 2012 12:41, Mike Duigou <mike.duigou at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all;
>>
>> Here are some additional functional interfaces for review. The additions
>> fill in holes for primitive types and for two operand "Bi" operations.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/8004561/0/webrev/
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/8004561/0/specdiff/java/util/function/package-summary.html
>>
>> Additionally, this patch contains naming updates on the existing
>> functional interfaces following 335 EG review. It does not include the
>> interface specializations and default methods previously proposed in
>> CR#8004015. That proposal has been withdrawn. It turned out that user
>> errors involving unexpected boxing were just too common for the value
>> provided.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>