Collectors update

[Remi Forax]

On 02/05/2013 09:22 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> I concur with Kevin.

We should remove Consumer.chain() in that case.

Rémi

>
> On 2/5/2013 3:20 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr
>> <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>                 4.  Rejigger Partition to return an array again, with an
>>                 explicit
>>                 lambda (which will likely be an array ctor ref) to make
>>                 the array.
>>                 Eliminated the silly Partition class.
>>
>>
>>             Please don't do that, it's pure evil.
>>                 public static<T> Collector<T, Collection<T>[]>
>>             partitioningBy(Predicate<T> predicate,
>>             IntFunction<Collection<T>[]>
>>             arraySupplier) {
>>
>>
>>         I've refactored this to make the partition collectors return
>>         Map<Boolean, X>.
>>
>>
>>     I think returning a boolean -> T (or Boolean -> T) is better because
>>     it's conceptually more lightweight than a Map.
>>     I expect to see more function instead of a Map returned as result of
>>     a method.
>>
>>
>> I'd have to disagree; I expect function objects to be little things I
>> pass /in/, but I think it's more intuitive to expect a proper data
>> structure back out.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. |kevinb at google.com
>> <mailto:kevinb at google.com>