parallelStream() methods (original) (raw)

Doug Lea dl at cs.oswego.edu
Sat Feb 9 08:31:17 PST 2013

On 02/09/13 11:07, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:

But the choice isn't precisely between those two; it's between having one or both. I assume that the stream().parallel() option has to exist regardless, and so users will encounter it in code, and they /will/ have to start discussions with each other about "why did you do s().p() instead of .pS(), or vice versa, and what's the difference anyway?" Then, every time someone /adds/ a stream() method to their type they then face the question of whether they're supposed to add parallelStream() too, etc.

Well, I don't like the parallel() method on Stream anyway, so I'll let others take over from here...

-Doug

More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers mailing list