Request for Review (#2) : CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces

[Joe Bowbeer]

Hey Brian,

Judging from Mike's email, I gather that these "apply" method names do need
to be unique?

Just hoping you can clarify...


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>wrote:

> I've updated the webrev for the first set of lambda functional interfaces
>> (JSR-335) with the feedback from the first review round. The updated webrev
>> is:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**mduigou/8001634/3/webrev/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/8001634/3/webrev/>
>>
>> This update includes:
>>
>> - Mapper.map becomes Function.apply
>> - Factory.make becomes Supplier.get
>> - Specializations of Supplier for int, long, double
>> - Reorder type variables to put result last
>> - Fixes many javadoc and stylistic comments.
>>
>> What didn't change:
>> - Block was not renamed to Action or Procedure. The name Block.apply
>> currently conflicts with Function.apply and should be renamed.
>> Block.accept? Block.perform?
>>
>
> Block.accept.
>
> Also, to allow IntFunction<T> to implement Function<T,Integer>, need to
> adjust the method names.  Propose
>
>   applyAs{Int,Long,Double}
>
> for specializations.
>
> Similarly, need to do the same for Supplier:
>
>   getAs{Int,Long,Double}
>
> with appropriate defaults for the specialized versions.
>