Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces (original) (raw)
Tim Peierls tim at peierls.net
Sun Nov 4 06:07:07 PST 2012
- Previous message: Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces
- Next message: Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
For all you Procedure-lovers out there -- how do you feel about the specialized types
IntProcedure LongProcedure etc? I think they're awful.
Worse than IntBlock and LongBlock? I'd say a little better, actually. I have an immediate sense of what IntProcedure means, but I have no intuition about IntBlock.
But, this naming rule serves us pretty well in all the other cases.
It seems reasonable here, too. I expect the specialized types to be a bit ugly, but the ugliness arises from the need for specialized types, not from the choice of stem.
--tim
- Previous message: Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces
- Next message: Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers mailing list