FlatMapper (original) (raw)

Raab, Donald Donald.Raab at gs.com
Thu Feb 21 08:42:22 PST 2013

Is there anything wrong with flatMapInto? Apologies if this was already covered and dismissed.

-----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: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:36 AM To: Kevin Bourrillion Cc: lambda-libs-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: FlatMapper

Is mapInto better than flattenInto? Still trivial to change at this point. On 2/21/2013 11:33 AM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote: > Tardy, but: the Googlers I ran this by all felt just fine with > "mapInto". Sure, you can map /multiple, /but that fact just didn't > seem overly necessary to force into the name. > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com_ _> <mailto:joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>> wrote: > > flattenInto gets my vote > > On Feb 17, 2013 11:09 AM, "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr_ _> <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr>> wrote: > > On 02/17/2013 08:07 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: > > flattenInto seems the best so far. > > > +1 > > Rémi > > > On 2/17/2013 9:36 AM, Tim Peierls wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Remi Forax > <forax at univ-mlv.fr <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr> > <mailto:forax at univ-mlv.fr <mailto:forax at univ-_ _mlv.fr>>> > wrote: > > mapAndFlattenInto is a little to verbose for me, > mapAndFlat ? > > > No, has to be a verb. > > I'd still understand flattenInto, leaving the mapping > part to be implied > by the type name. > > --tim > > > > > > -- > Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. |kevinb at google.com > <mailto:kevinb at google.com>

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