Heads up: Mapper<T, R> -> Mapper<R, T>

[Pablo Grisafi]

Can we please abandon the horrible misleading one-letter-for-types convention?
Looks like we are in programming in BASIC again
Let's use good intention revealing names, please
Name<Result, Parameter> or Name<Input, Output> or even Name<TInput,
TOutput> are way better than Name<T,R>
For one type argument classes, like List<E>, it is not that important,
but even in that case, List<Element> is better
Sorry if my English is not good enough. Sometimes I think I'm the only
average Java programmer reading this list.
Am I missing some clever reason why we are using the one-letter convention?

Pablo Grisafi
pablogrisafi1975 at gmail.com

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org>
> To: Jonathan Gibbons <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>
> Cc: lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:06:03 -0600
> Subject: Re: Heads up: Mapper<T, R> -> Mapper<R, T>
> Is R and P better than I and O? I don't think I could guess R and P
> without
> reading the javadoc. I and O, I can (no pun).
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Jonathan Gibbons <
> jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > Can I suggest that we at least try and establish some naming convention
> > as well, so that we are not just relying on positional conventions.
> >
> > There are already some JDK APIs with "result first, then parameter",
> > using the convention   Name<R, P>   R for Result, P for Parameter
> >
> > -- Jon