Function type naming conventions (original) (raw)

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at oracle.com
Tue Jan 29 09:36:21 PST 2013

Still some holes, e.g., doesn't tell me which of the following is right:

ObjObjToIntFunction BiToIntFunction ToIntBiFunction

The second one is definitely wrong because we put type modifiers first. So somewhere it should say:

[ type arg specializations ] [ return specialization ] [ arity ] base

Of the remaining (and many like it), there are always going to be multiple ways to name the same thing. So its not that (1) is wrong and (3) is right. Both are consistent (as is ObjObjToIntBiFunction). But we should have some rules for which we prefer.

--tim On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com_ _<mailto:paul.sandoz at oracle.com>> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at google.com_ _<mailto:kevinb at google.com>> wrote: Does anyone have a complete and current taxonomy of where exactly we've ended up with all this (leaving out all the history of how we got here)? Does the following suffice? http://hg.openjdk.java.net/lambda/lambda/jdk/file/5d4167b7bf8c/src/share/classes/java/util/function/package-info.java Paul.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net_ _<mailto:tim at peierls.net>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com <mailto:joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>>wrote: +1 ObjIntBlock (or a more descriptive "Block" name if one is selected)

Agreed. Works well in conjunction with Dan Smith's suggestion ('if the base type is parameterized in both its parameters and return, then the "To" prefix is mandatory. If not, "To" is not used.'), omitting To and Bi where they aren't needed. --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