Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith

[Kevin Bourrillion]

So... comparator1.compound(comparator2)?


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>wrote:

> However, this is the first time I'm noticing that you're using the name
>> compose() not only for function composition, but also for forming a
>> compound comparator.  Has it been suggested that we not reuse the
>> compose() name to mean this other thing?  Note that there does exist a
>> compose operation for Comparators, but it's (Function, Comparator) ->
>> Comparator (Guava puts it in the other order and calls it "onResultOf",
>> which I'm not recommending).
>>
>
> It has not been suggested until now.  I am fine calling this something
> that does not contain the string "compose".  The key concept is "I have two
> comparators, and I want to build a dictionary-order comparator for (O1,
> O2)."
>
> I am fine with .compose() for functions.
>
> I think .compose(other) is too cryptic for comparators.  I think
> .composeWith() is better; I can imagine there are other things that are
> also better.  Now taking suggestions.  (Though onResultOf does not seem
> better.)
>



-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com