Foo.Of{Int,Long,Double} naming convention

[Joe Bowbeer]

I was second-thinking that the answer to my Streams questions is no because
these are not subtypes.  The PrimitiveStreams question was a follow-on,
contingent on Stream.OfInt, etc.

The naming question applies to e.g. FloatMapReducer
On Dec 24, 2012 9:30 AM, "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Stream.OfInt instead of IntStream?
>>
>
> Where to draw the line is hard.  I did think about this but I think this
> is over the line; they're both big types, IntStream doesn't extend Stream,
> IntStream is much more than a trivial specialization of Stream.
>
> Basically, I think the OfXxx works well when you wish you didn't have to
> have the types at all, and hiding them as nested types is an uneasy
> compromise.
>
>  Do PrimitiveStreams methods become (top-level) methods in Streams?
>>
>
> Not sure what you mean?
>
>  One disadvantage of this convention is that these names are hard to
>> implement as extensions by 3rd parties. Suppose I need a ShortStream or
>> a FloatStream. Or an IntFoo for some Foo without a Foo.OfInt, then I
>> can't create Foo.OfInt, and IntFoo doesn't follow the naming convention.
>>
>
> Right.  Another reason why it fails for "big" abstractions.
>