Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces

[Remi Forax]

On 11/01/2012 04:40 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> I also think that UnaryOperator and BinaryOperator are name that are too
>> long,
>> I think that Op and BinOp are better.
>
> The names UnaryOperator and BinaryOperator are a bit inconsistent with 
> the rest of the names.  The naming model we have (which may well be 
> inadequate) implies a "natural" arity for a base name 
> (arity(Predicate) = 1, arity(Factory) = 0).  We then use prefixes like 
> Bi to suggest a different arity, such as in BiMapper or BiBlock.
>
> So it would be more consistent to choose an arity for Operator (2?) 
> and have Operator and UnaryOperator / UniOperator.  Do we like that 
> better?

What trouble me is that most of the SAMs are one word, or two with 
primitive specialization,
but UnaryOperator/BinaryOperator or UniOperator are already composite names,
so it make them look as inconsistent with the rest of the SAMs.

>
> Or, is the "natural arity" scheme naive and we should have arity 
> prefixes on all SAMs?  (I hope not.)

I hope not too :)
I perfer no arity prefix for all SAMs.

Rémi