Like David, I prefer the `null{$ClassName}` alternative to
`null{Source|Sink}`. (I assume from his wording that he prefers
`null{$ClassName}`.)
I prefer `null{$ClassName}` not only because it's less ambiguous, but also
because Guava has existing types `{Byte|Char}Source` and `{Byte|Char}Sink`,
so I'd find it a bit confusing to see `nullSource()` at first (especially
if it were statically-imported) as I would initially expect it to have a
return type of `*Source`.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 8 December 2017 at 19:03, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, David Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Brian Burkhalter
> > <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> Patrick’s comment made us think again about the naming here as
> “nullStream()” would not fit for eventual equivalent methods on Reader and
> Writer. It might be better to go with something like
> >>
> >> InputStream InputStream.nullSource();
> >> OutputStream.nullSink();
> >>
> >> and later
> >>
> >> Reader.nullSource();
> >> Writer.nullSink();
> >>
> >> Another alternative would be simply to reflect the class names in the
> methods:
> >>
> >> InputStream InputStream.nullInputStream();
> >> OutputStream.nullOutputStream();
> >>
> >> and later
> >>
> >> Reader.nullReader();
> >> Writer.nullWriter();
> >
> > I for one prefer this alternative; it's very clear and unambiguous.
> The second one?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
