Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith

[Raab, Donald]

Just out of curiosity,I opened up Microsoft Excel and looked how they word multi-level sorts.

Sort By -> Column A 
Then By -> Column B
Then By -> Column C
Etc.

So "then" in the wording definitely looks good.  Not sure if there is anything better than thenCompare.  

This would be cool to read, but is a different animal.

people.sortBy(Person::getLast).thenBy(Person::getFirst)  

We use the word "chain" on our Comparators static utility class in GS Collections with varargs.  But since you are adding this method to Comparator, not sure if chain or chainWith would be a good name.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lambda-libs-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:lambda-
> libs-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Brian Goetz
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:07 PM
> To: Sam Pullara
> Cc: lambda-libs-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith
> 
> I like the "then" convention to indicate sequencing.  In context:
> 
> people.sort(comparing(Person::getLast)
>                .thenCompare(comparing(Person::getFirst)))
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/26/2012 3:04 PM, Sam Pullara wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto:kevinb at google.com>
> >>
> >