[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QUARKS-18?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15192391#comment-15192391
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on QUARKS-18:
--------------------------------------

GitHub user Cazen opened a pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/incubator-quarks/pull/6

    [QUARKS-18] Split function based upon an enumeration

    I've created PR for newbie's issue but afraid to there are mistake or 
misunderstood.
    
    Please feel free to advise me.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

    $ git pull https://github.com/Cazen/incubator-quarks QUARKS-18

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

    https://github.com/apache/incubator-quarks/pull/6.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

    This closes #6
    
----
commit 8067af37a5dbf16ac6b932ca080f0400d86629a3
Author: Cazen <[email protected]>
Date:   2016-03-13T15:08:11Z

    Added split(enumClass, splitter)

----


> Split function based upon an enumeration.
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: QUARKS-18
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QUARKS-18
>             Project: Quarks
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: API
>            Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: newbie
>
> An enum based split would be useful.
> Something like:
> <E> List<TStream<T>> split(Class<E> enumClass, Function<T,E> splitter)
> So the stream is split by the enum value with the returned streams in ordinal 
> order.
> This may have the benefit of being self-maintaining, so that if an enum value 
> is added, the returned number of streams changes automatically, but only if 
> given an enum class one can figure out the number of enums.
> Based upon looking at the sample code in QUARKS-16



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to