Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith

[Sam Pullara]

How about something that sounds more comparator specific:

comparator1.thenCompare(comparator2)

Sam

On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at google.com> wrote:

> 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
>