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

[Joe Bowbeer]

Commenting on the original proposal and some comments related to it:

I also dislike Mapper.

Fun at first seems like a reasonable name, and would even be more
consistent if the unnecessarily lengthy Operator name were shortened to Op
-- which is fine because Op never appears alone.

Then the names would be like: BinaryOp, BinaryFun, LongOp, LongFun.  OK,
there's something funny about this...  (Not to mention the possibility of
FunMaker.)

I have generally avoided fun names, but now that Phaser is in, is the door
wide open?



On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> On 11/01/2012 12:58 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
>
>>
>>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**mduigou/8001634/2/webrev/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/8001634/2/webrev/>
>>>
>>>
>> My main non-technical reaction is that more I see "Mapper",
>> the more I hate it. It interacts awfully especially with Maps.
>> "Fun" (with lots of precedent in other languages) would
>> be fine. Even "Function" would be fine.
>>
>
> I agree with Doug, my students have less problem with filter/Predicate/test
> than with map/Mapper/map,
> so instead of map/Mapper/map, map//Fun/apply is in my opinion better,
> but requires to rename Block.apply to by example Block.execute.
>
> I also think that UnaryOperator and BinaryOperator are name that are too
> long,
> I think that Op and BinOp are better.
>
> and BTW, UnaryOperator should extends Mapper<T,T> and not Map<T,T>
> is currently suggested in the comment of the declaration of UnaryOperator.
>
>
>> -Doug
>>
>
> Rémi
>
>