Let's please rename Block to Receiver before it's too late

[Doug Lea]

On 01/18/13 21:36, Brian Goetz wrote:
> OK, OK, if people really, really hate Block, I would still consider Sink.
>   Sink is the opposite of Source.  We could rename Supplier to Source, and
> rename Block to Sink.  Leaving the method names the same (accept and get.)
>

"Sink" is nice in the Stream framework, which is a plus in
encouraging people to use it, but not in other common
contexts where the main property to convey is that it is a
possibly side-effecting action, as opposed to a Function.

Does everyone else prefer "Action" as best possible name?
If so, would we be willing to reconsider rejecting it because
of Swing conflicts? The interactions do not seem to
be all that bad: Swing programmers would never encounter
problems as pure lambda-users (they need not import
java.util.functions.Action or otherwise use the type.)
So the only ones impacted are those who write
lambda-accepting Swing methods, which do not yet exist.

And to help a bit further, we could keep the method
name as "accept", to reduce conceptual conflict with the
conventions surrounding "perform" in Swing.

interface Action<T> { void accept(T t); }

-Doug