[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14965259#comment-14965259
]
Matt Frantz commented on TINKERPOP3-900:
----------------------------------------
There is no single answer. The two alternatives being discussed are as follows:
1. Make the change as proposed.
2. Do not make the change as proposed.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? (I cannot answer that question
myself, and it is not rhetorical.)
> Provide by(object) which compiles to by(constant(object))
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP3-900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-900
> Project: TinkerPop 3
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Affects Versions: 3.0.2-incubating
> Reporter: Marko A. Rodriguez
> Assignee: Marko A. Rodriguez
> Fix For: 3.1.0-incubating
>
>
> Right now, this is how you can increment a sack.
> {code}
> sack{a,b -> a+1}
> {code}
> OR, lambda free:
> {code}
> sack(sum).by(constant(1))
> {code}
> I think we should make a {{by()}}-modulator that is:
> {code}
> sack(sum).by(1)
> {code}
> That is:
> {code}
> by(object) -> by(constant(0)).
> {code}
> In fact, we have an {{AbstractLambdaTraversal}} called {{ConstantTraversal}}
> which will make this even faster (analogous to {{LoopTraversal}} being used
> instead of {{until(loops().gt(4))}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
