One more pass on flatMap/mapMulti

[Zakharov, Vladimir]

+1 DownstreamCollector

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
See http://www.gs.com/disclaimer/global_email for important risk disclosures, conflicts of interest and other terms and conditions relating to this e-mail and your reliance on information contained in it.  This message may contain confidential or privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this message.  See http://www.gs.com/disclaimer/email for further information on confidentiality and the risks of non-secure electronic communication.  If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. 


-----Original Message-----
From: lambda-libs-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:lambda-libs-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Brian Goetz
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:36 PM
To: Tim Peierls
Cc: lambda-libs-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: One more pass on flatMap/mapMulti

I like the idea that whatever is passed to the block describes the 
downstream; the role of the block is to emit values downstream.  I think 
that makes things clearer about what's going on, which is good because 
what is going on is already not all that clear.

I buy that "Downstream" could use some nounification.  (Calvin say: 
verbing weirds language.)

DownstreamCollector
DownstreamAcceptor
DownstreamHandler

accept() is OK, and we can make it extend Block.

On 1/10/2013 12:28 PM, Tim Peierls wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com
> <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Bikeshed discussions can continue.
>
>
> OK, then! :-)
>
> The method name "send" is OK, but you wouldn't be seeing it in the
> signature of explode. What you would see is Downstream<T>, which still
> bugs me. The word "downstream" is an adverb or adjective, not a noun.
> Things are sent downstream, they aren't sent *to* a downstream.
>
> Was Acceptor.accept proposed and rejected already? If so, why? I would
> understand
>
> explode(BiBlock<Acceptor<T>__, T>))
>
> --tim