Hi,
Please review a relative simple webrev[1] that basically simply renaming
Comparator methods. The reason behind the renaming can be found at this
email thread[2]. The specdiff is also available here[3].
Cheers,
Henry
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/ccc/8023528/0/webrev/
[2]
http://ma
Hi Henry,
Changes look good. It's also good to see some now-extra casts and type
witnesses removed. It somewhat makes up for the longer, non-overloaded
method names.
Note, corrected email thread[2] link:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/2013-August/002206.html
Thanks Stuart for the review and correct link.
Cheers,
Henry
On Aug 22, 2013, at 11:00 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> Changes look good. It's also good to see some now-extra casts and type
> witnesses removed. It somewhat makes up for the longer, non-overloaded method
> names.
>
>
I for one must express the concern that this is extremely ugly API. It
is another blow to the reputation of Java Language.
While we should not support overload with implicit lambda in general
cases, we should and can support it in the restricted case where all
overloading methods agree upon the la
Looks OK to me.
Mike
On Aug 22 2013, at 20:21 , Henry Jen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review a relative simple webrev[1] that basically simply renaming
> Comparator methods. The reason behind the renaming can be found at this
> email thread[2]. The specdiff is also available here[3].
>
> Cheers,
>
