[concurrency-interest] Ops type names

Joshua Bloch josh at bloch.us
Tue Jan 15 17:05:16 EST 2008


Gregg,

These are classes, not methods.  I'm afraid I confused you when I
accidentally typed some lowercase letters earlier on.

           Josh

On Jan 15, 2008 1:25 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gergg at cox.net> wrote:

> Joshua Bloch wrote:
> > Gregg,
> >
> > Hmmm... the onInt and withInt don't really feel right to me.  If people
> > don't like intOp (or intFn), then I think we should go with David's
> > inclination (intToInt).
>
> I'm just thinking out loud here...  The main focus is that these are
> operations
> on one type that produce another type.  Thus the doubleToInt etc names
> feel
> good.  The use of intToInt seems okay, but perhaps doubleToDouble is just
> a lot
> of typing and becomes a bit verbose.  The use of overloading in java
> allows the
> parameterization to change but not the return type, so we are motivated by
> that
> to come up with unique names such as intToDouble and shortToDouble because
> we
> can't do
>
>        double op( int s );
>        double op( short s );
>
> I'm not sure where overloading sits in all of these discussions.  My
> previous
> suggestion was about a prefix, but perhaps a suffix notation is better, as
> in
>
>        double doubleFor( int s );
>        double doubleFor( short s );
>
> or
>
>        double doubleFrom( int s );
>        double doubleFrom( short s );
>
> or
>
>        double doubleOn( int s );
>        double doubleOn( short s );
>
> or even just using the single name that Josh suggested for all of the
> result
> type operations by relying on overloading to resolve the implementation.
>
>        double doubleOp( int s );
>        double doubleOp( short s );
>
> There are other suffixes besides 'For' and 'From', such as 'With', 'Of'
> etc.  I
> have some casual attraction to the 'On' form because I think of the
> sentence "I
> want a double value, resulting from an operation on ...".
>
> Probably you have gone over this viewpoint already, so sorry for repeating
> if
> so.  Just trying to think about how to get to simple names that are
> effective,
> but not overwhelming to draw into conversation.
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080115/acc75f63/attachment.html 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list