Function type naming conventions

[Kevin Bourrillion]

All right, how many mistakes am I already making here? :-)

(I keep forgetting if there is a url where I can browse the very-latest
lambda sources as checked in.)

Functions:
*

 To Object To int To doubleFrom Object Function ToIntFunction
ToDoubleFunction From int IntFunctionIntToIntFunction IntToDoubleFunction From
doubleDoubleFunction DoubleToIntFunction DoubleToDoubleFunction


BiConsumers:*
*
 Then Object Then int Then doubleFirst Object BiConsumer ObjIntConsumer
ObjDoubleConsumer First int -IntIntConsumer* IntDoubleConsumer First double-
- DoubleDoubleConsumer

*
* or is it IntBiConsumer?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Still some holes, e.g., doesn't tell me which of the following is right:
>>
>> ObjObjToIntFunction
>> BiToIntFunction
>> ToIntBiFunction
>>
>
> The second one is definitely wrong because we put type modifiers first.
>  So somewhere it should say:
>
>  [ type arg specializations ] [ return specialization ] [ arity ] base
>
> Of the remaining (and many like it), there are always going to be multiple
> ways to name the same thing.  So its not that (1) is wrong and (3) is
> right.  Both are consistent (as is ObjObjToIntBiFunction).  But we should
> have some rules for which we prefer.
>
>
>> --tim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com
>> <mailto:paul.sandoz at oracle.com**>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Jan 29, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at google.com
>>     <mailto:kevinb at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Does anyone have a complete and current taxonomy of where exactly
>>>     we've
>>>     ended up with all this (leaving out all the history of how we got
>>>     here)?
>>>
>>
>>     Does the following suffice?
>>
>>     http://hg.openjdk.java.net/**lambda/lambda/jdk/file/**
>> 5d4167b7bf8c/src/share/**classes/java/util/function/**package-info.java<http://hg.openjdk.java.net/lambda/lambda/jdk/file/5d4167b7bf8c/src/share/classes/java/util/function/package-info.java>
>>
>>     Paul.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net
>>>     <mailto:tim at peierls.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Joe Bowbeer
>>>>     <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com <mailto:joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>**>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      +1 ObjIntBlock (or a more descriptive "Block" name if one is
>>>>>     selected)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>     Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>     Works well in conjunction with Dan Smith's suggestion ('if the
>>>>     base type
>>>>     is parameterized in both its parameters and return, then the "To"
>>>>     prefix is
>>>>     mandatory.  If not, "To" is not used.'), omitting To and Bi where
>>>>     they
>>>>     aren't needed.
>>>>
>>>>     --tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. |
>>>     kevinb at google.com <mailto:kevinb at google.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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/20130129/9b07a94e/attachment-0001.html