Possible groupingBy simplification?

Tim Peierls tim at peierls.net
Wed Apr 10 13:00:19 PDT 2013


Agreed.

What mergeFn is used in two-arg toMap?

--tim

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks good. I like the retention of the simple forms, and the telescopes.
> On Apr 10, 2013 11:11 AM, "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> After staring at groupingBy and toMap for a while, I think there's a nice
>> middle ground which should address the key use cases while reducing a
>> little bit of the "which one do I use":
>>
>>   groupingBy(f)
>>   groupingBy(f, downstreamCollector)
>>   groupingBy(f, mapSupplier, downstreamCollector)
>>
>>   toMap(keyFn, valFn)
>>   toMap(keyFn, valFn, mergeFn)
>>   toMap(keyFn, valFn, mergeFn, mapSupplier)
>>
>> This cuts variants of each from 4 to 3, but more importantly, orders them
>> into a nice telescoping set.
>>
>> Those wanting the groupingBy(f, mapSUpplier) version should be able to
>> figure out easily (with aid from doc) that they can use groupingBy(f,
>> mapSUpplier, toList()).
>>
>> On 4/10/2013 1:10 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>
>>> Joe,
>>> collect(toList(), groupingBy(f));
>>>    => how do you express the fact that you may want to group in cascade ?
>>>
>>> collect(groupingBy(f)).toList(**)
>>>    => what is the resulting type of collect(groupingBy(f)) ?
>>>          is it a super-type of Stream ?
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>> I'm fine with the proposed changes.
>>>
>>> Rémi
>>>
>>> On 04/10/2013 06:42 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correction: All the grouping(f) should be groupingBy(f)
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2013 9:37 AM, "Joe Bowbeer" <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>**> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     For consistency with minBy and friends, all the 'By' methods
>>>>     should take a single argument: f. Hence grouping(f).
>>>>
>>>>     No-arg and one-arg forms are the easiest to use and maintain. Just
>>>>     the additional comma, and which pair of parens contains it, is a
>>>>     significant burden.
>>>>
>>>>     The most readable forms of collect that have an explicit toList()
>>>>     would be of the form:
>>>>
>>>>     collect(grouping(f)).toList();
>>>>
>>>>     or maybe
>>>>
>>>>     collect(toList(), groupingBy(f));
>>>>
>>>>     Joe
>>>>
>>>>     On Apr 10, 2013 2:35 AM, "Paul Sandoz" <paul.sandoz at oracle.com
>>>>     <mailto:paul.sandoz at oracle.com**>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On Apr 9, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Joe Bowbeer
>>>>         <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com <mailto:joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>**> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         > I like the most popular form.  In fact, I think it's the
>>>>         only one that I've
>>>>         > used.
>>>>         >
>>>>         > The argument that users will gain by removing their most
>>>>         common form seems
>>>>         > kind of far-fetched.
>>>>         >
>>>>
>>>>         If each method in Collectors does just one conceptual thing we
>>>>         can concisely express in documentation it is easier to
>>>>         remember and therefore easier to read the code, easier to find
>>>>         in documentation be it using the IDE or otherwise. Thus to me
>>>>         that suggests removing conceptual variants or renaming them.
>>>>
>>>>         If the list variants were called say groupingByToList that
>>>>         would ensure the "one conceptual thing":  classifies elements
>>>>         by key, and collects elements associated with that key to a
>>>>         list. But i suspect we might not require those methods if the
>>>>         leap of stream.collector(toList()) can be grasped.
>>>>
>>>>         The same applies to toMap. I think it is easier to
>>>>         understand/read if it does just one conceptual thing: elements
>>>>         are keys, elements are mapped to values, conflicting keys
>>>>         result in an exception. If that does not fit ones requirements
>>>>         use groupingBy.
>>>>
>>>>         Paul.
>>>>
>>>>         > In my experience, I do a ctrl-space and look for my target
>>>>         return type on
>>>>         > the right-hand-side of the IDE popup, and then I try to fill
>>>>         in the missing
>>>>         > information, such as parameters.  In this case, having to
>>>>         provide toList()
>>>>         > would probably be a stumbling block for me, as the IDE is
>>>>         not as good when
>>>>         > it comes to suggesting expressions for parameters.
>>>>         >
>>>>         > I sort of like the symmetry with collect(toList()) but not
>>>>         enough to make
>>>>         > up for the loss.
>>>>         >
>>>>         >
>>>>         >
>>>>         > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Brian Goetz
>>>>         <brian.goetz at oracle.com <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com**>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>         >
>>>>         >> Paul suggested the following possible simplification for
>>>>         groupingBy.  It
>>>>         >> is somewhat counterintuitive at first glance, in that it
>>>>         removes the most
>>>>         >> commonly used form (!), but might make things easier to
>>>>         grasp in the long
>>>>         >> run (aided by good docs.)
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> Recall we currently have four forms of groupingBy:
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>    // classifier only -- maps keys to list of matching
>>>> elements
>>>>         >>    Collector<T, Map<K, List<T>>>
>>>>         >>    groupingBy(Function<? super T, ? extends K> classifier)
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>    // Like above, but with explicit map ctor
>>>>         >>    <T, K, M extends Map<K, List<T>>>
>>>>         >>    Collector<T, M>
>>>>         >>    groupingBy(Function<? super T, ? extends K> classifier,
>>>>         >>               Supplier<M> mapFactory)
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>    // basic cascaded form
>>>>         >>    Collector<T, Map<K, D>>
>>>>         >>    groupingBy(Function<? super T, ? extends K> classifier,
>>>>         >>               Collector<T, D> downstream)
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>    // cascaded form with explicit ctor
>>>>         >>    <T, K, D, M extends Map<K, D>>
>>>>         >>    Collector<T, M>
>>>>         >>    groupingBy(Function<? super T, ? extends K> classifier,
>>>>         >>               Supplier<M> mapFactory,
>>>>         >>               Collector<T, D> downstream)
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> Plus four corresponding forms for groupingByConcurrent.
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> The first form is likely to be the most common, as it is
>>>>         the traditional
>>>>         >> "group by".  It is equivalent to:
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>  groupingBy(classifier, toList());
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> The proposal is: Drop the first two forms.  Just as users
>>>>         can learn that
>>>>         >> to collect elements into a list, you do:
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>  collect(toList())
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> people can learn that to do the simple form of groupBy, you
>>>>         can do:
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>  collect(groupingBy(f, toList());
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> Which also reads perfectly well.
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >> By cutting the number of forms in half, it helps users to
>>>>         realize that
>>>>         >> groupingBy does just one thing -- classifies elements by
>>>>         key, and collects
>>>>         >> elements associated with that key.  Obviously the docs for
>>>>         groupingBy can
>>>>         >> show examples of the simple grouping as well as more
>>>>         sophisticated
>>>>         >> groupings.
>>>>         >>
>>>>         >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130410/b1194396/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts mailing list