Generators

[Sam Pullara]

These look pretty reasonable to me. What is the motivation for ints()?

Sam

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm looking over our generators.  Currently we have:
>
>   repeat(T)
>   repeat(n, T)
>   repeatedly(Supplier<T>)
>   repeatedly(n, Supplier<T>)
>   iterate(T, UnaryOperator<T>)
>   cycle(Iterable)
>
> I'd like to pare this down a lot.  Paul and I have been discussing
> techniques for making limit() more efficient, at which point the first four
> can collapse to
>
>   generate(Supplier<T>)
>
> since you can simulate repeat(T) with generate(() -> T) and the limited
> versions with generate().limit().
>
> That leaves us with
>
>   iterate(T, UnaryOperator<T>)
>   cycle(Iterable)
>
> and I'm thinking cycle doesn't pull its weight either.  If we took that
> out, we'd be down to the pleasantly small set of:
>
>   generate(Supplier<T>)
>   iterate(T, UnaryOperator<T>)
>
> For integer generators, we have
>
>   range(from, to)
>
> and I think we should add
>
>   ints() -> sugar for range(0, MAX_INT)
>
> (Or should ints() be truly infinite, wrapping around?)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130103/ad4f73ea/attachment.html