Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

é: Vendredi 21 Septembre 2018 12:22:42 > > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > > > On 18/09/2018 18:52, Jim Laskey wrote: > >> Please review the code for String::transform. The goal is to provide a > String > >> instance method to allow funct

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

Thank you for following up - we all know the core-libs team has a busy workload, and naming topics are always tricky. I'm personally unconvinced that `transform()` is the best name out there. While transform is OK for String and maybe Optional, it is poor for List and Stream. In addition, I'm

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

Hi everybody, I've finally caught up with all of this. I see that several people are surprised by the way this has turned out. As the first-named reviewer on this changeset, I felt I should try to figure out what happened. While this API point stands on its own, this is really part of Jim's

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

gt; > - Mail original - > > > De: "Stephen Colebourne" > > > À: "core-libs-dev" > > > Envoyé: Vendredi 30 Novembre 2018 12:06:23 > > > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > > > > > I see

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

tephen Colebourne" > > À: "core-libs-dev" > > Envoyé: Vendredi 30 Novembre 2018 12:06:23 > > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > > > I see from Twitter (!!!) that this has been pushed. This appears to have > > happened

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

I fully agree with Stephen. Rémi - Mail original - > De: "Stephen Colebourne" > À: "core-libs-dev" > Envoyé: Vendredi 30 Novembre 2018 12:06:23 > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > I see from Twitter (!!!) that this ha

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

I see from Twitter (!!!) that this has been pushed. This appears to have happened without this thread coming to a clear conclusion, particularly wrt criticism of transform() as a suitable method name in the broader context. I also do not think that the code review was completed correctly and in

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 15:44, Brian Goetz wrote: > Yes, we know :) But we don’t have any current plans to do that, nor use-site > extension methods, nor does it seem likely to come to the top of the language > priority list very soon. So its not a choice between |> and .transform(); > it’s a

RE: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

awkward anywhere. Kind regards, Anthony From: core-libs-dev on behalf of Remi Forax Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:36:16 PM To: Brian Goetz Cc: core-libs-dev Subject: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) Hi Brian, - Mail

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

Hi Brian, - Mail original - > De: "Brian Goetz" > À: "Peter Levart" > Cc: "core-libs-dev" > Envoyé: Mardi 13 Novembre 2018 15:37:31 > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) >> An argument aga

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

> An argument against re-using the name map() for this String method is that > Stream.map() and Optional.map() act on the element(s) of the "container" the > method is invoked upon, and return the same raw part of type with type > parameter adjusted, while String.map() would be passing the

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) (was: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review))

: "Alan Bateman" > >> À: "Jim Laskey" , "core-libs-dev" > >> > >> Envoyé: Vendredi 21 Septembre 2018 12:22:42 > >> Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > > > >> On 18/09/2018 18:52, Jim Laskey w

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

On 9/21/18 12:22 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/09/2018 18:52, Jim Laskey wrote: Please review the code for String::transform. The goal is to provide a String instance method to allow function application of custom transformations applied to an instance of String. webrev:

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) (was: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review))

Hi Jim, > updated webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8203442/webrev-02/index.html > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java 2983 * @param class of the result Maybe "the type of the result" would be

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

- Mail original - > De: "Alan Bateman" > À: "Jim Laskey" , "core-libs-dev" > > Envoyé: Vendredi 21 Septembre 2018 12:22:42 > Objet: Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review) > On 18/09/2018 18:52, Jim Laskey wrote: >>

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

On 18/09/2018 18:52, Jim Laskey wrote: Please review the code for String::transform. The goal is to provide a String instance method to allow function application of custom transformations applied to an instance of String. webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8203442/webrev/index.html

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8203442/webrev-01/index.html > On Sep 19, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Jim Laskey wrote: > >> On Sep 19, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Remi Forax wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> the signature of

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

> On Sep 19, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > Hi Jim, > the signature of transform() in the webrev was not updated (so the wildcards > are missing). Apologies. I created the webrev before I fully saved. Will update in a bit. > > And i'm still not convince this method should be

Re: RFR - JDK-8203442 String::transform (Code Review)

Hi Jim, the signature of transform() in the webrev was not updated (so the wildcards are missing). And i'm still not convince this method should be introduced as is: - it need more variants (transformToInt, transformToLong, transformToDouble) to be useful, currently