Function type naming conventions

[Brian Goetz]

Agreed.  (Which is the same conclusion we had the last several times 
Remi brought this issue up :)



On 1/23/2013 4:22 PM, Tim Peierls wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr
> <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr>> wrote:
>
>      >   UnaryOperator<T> extends Function<T,T>
>      >   BinaryOperator<T> extends BiFunction<T,T,T>
>
>     UnaryOperator should be Operator and BinaryOperator should be
>     BiOperator,
>     it's just more regular.
>
>     Operator<T> extends Function<T,T>
>     BiOperator<T> extends BiFunction<T,T,T>
>
>
> The reason to have these "convenience" types in the first place is so
> they'll be easy to remember and recognize. The term "function" is much
> more commonly used to mean "function of one argument", so
> Function/BiFunction is better than UnaryFunction/BinaryFunction. The
> term "operator" skew more evenly between unary and binary, so
> UnaryOperator/BinaryOperator is better than Operator/BiOperator.
>
> --tim