Review Request: CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces (original) (raw)
Brian Goetz brian.goetz at oracle.com
Sun Nov 4 06:09:32 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 ]
IMO, dramatically worse, yes.
On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Tim Peierls wrote:
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