Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith

[Raab, Donald]

What about this?

people.sort(comparing(Person::getLast).thenBy(Person::getFirst))

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raab, Donald [Tech]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:45 PM
> To: 'Brian Goetz'; Sam Pullara
> Cc: lambda-libs-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: Bikeshed opportunity: compose vs composeWith
> 
> 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>
> > >>
> > >