[concurrency-interest] Ops type names

Joshua Bloch josh at bloch.us
Sun Jan 27 18:43:34 EST 2008

Works for me.


On Jan 27, 2008 2:09 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2008 8:12 AM, Joshua Bloch <josh at bloch.us> wrote:
> >
> > 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 not sure where the thinking on this is at the moment, but after
> finally coding an example(!), I agree with David that intToInt and
> LongToLong are better than IntOp and LongOp, respectively.
> The Ops table is so big that some consistent convention is better than
> a couple shorter names.
> 1. When searching through the Ops in my IDE, I'd like to remember only
> one thing: the naming convention.  That will allow me to start typing
> and tabbing and eventually find the Op I'm looking for.
> 2. When reading my code, the Ops prefix signals me to "load" the
> naming convention into my memory so that I can make sense of the type
> name that follows.  For this, a consistent convention is better than
> one with (even) a couple exceptions.
> --Joe
>  _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080127/eaaf4772/attachment.html 

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list