Let's please rename Block to Receiver before it's too late

[Kevin Bourrillion]

Source<String>
IntSource
DoubleSource

Sink<String>
IntSink
DoubleSink

BiSource<Foo, Bar>
ObjIntBiSource<String>
BiSink<Foo, Bar>
ObjIntBiSink<String>

I think this is as good as we're going to get and, with Receiver failing to
catch on, I'd like to see if we can converge on Source/Sink now; who's in?


On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:

> On 01/19/13 09:58, Tim Peierls wrote:
>
>  I agree that "sink" doesn't emphasize the side-effect aspect, but does it
>> really
>> need to? What other use could a sink have? Whereas "action" doesn't carry
>> any
>> sense of "consuming" or "accepting".
>>
>
> Right. That's why it is nice in streams, but not in cases
> where the connotation of consuming is just plain wrong --
> the argument is just "used" not "consumed".
>
>   a.accept(x); b.accept(x); doSomethingElseWith(x);
>
> My reason for preferring Action (or even Block!) to Sink
> is that the only commonality is potential (and extremely
> likely) side-effecting-ness.
>
> (What would you name a void action of two arguments?
> There are a lot of these now.)
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130119/cc745788/attachment-0001.html