Function type naming conventions

[Doug Lea]

On 01/03/13 12:45, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> In fact, the only type we've come across repeatedly that wants a "nice"
>> name that doesn't fit into the above scheme is:
>>
>>    int -> T
>>
>> which shows up in quite a few places.  There are probably a few others
>> but this is the biggest.  (We also came across a desire for (T,int)->T
>> in the reducer work, but that shows up in only one place.)
>>
>> We could treat int -> R as a specialization of Function<T,R>, and extend
>> the naming convention to handle it, or we could try to come up with a
>> new top-level name for it.
>
> We can extend the existing naming convention to consistently handle this by:
>
>    Function<T,R>      // T -> R
>    IntTFunction<T>    // T -> int
>
> This is consistent with the existing convention, in that we are specializing all
> arguments, and then "unspecializing" the second with T.

Why not be plainer about it and use FromIntFunction.
People will catch on that the other one, IntFunction means ToIntFunction.
Or you could redo that side of the naming pattern as FunctionToInt etc?
(Although probably not all the way to renaming IntOperator as
FromIntFunctionToInt...)

-Doug