On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:30:39 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> Move all random generators mandated in package `java.util.random` and
>> currently implemented in module `jdk.random` to module `java.base`, and
>> remove module `jdk.random`.
>
> Raffaello Giulietti has updated the pull request
On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:30:39 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> Move all random generators mandated in package `java.util.random` and
>> currently implemented in module `jdk.random` to module `java.base`, and
>> remove module `jdk.random`.
>
> Raffaello Giulietti has updated the pull request
Nope. We can see your message. You only subscribe if you want to follow
along with the general discussions that you are not explicitly invited to.
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 7:14 PM wrote:
>
>
> This message is for information purposes only. It is not a recommendation,
> advice, offer or
Biggest use case is definitely when creating different histograms from the
same dataset. Our friends in sci-py land spend A LOT of time doing this.
Our R friends also use this frequently.
I can imagine this bag implementation would not just be good for
Collections, but would play well with the
I am in full support of this idea. I do also appreciate the functionality
of using a BiFunction on the map method instead of a normal
Function, R>.
As for the actual enumeration logic, my vote is that it should simply
enumerate as it arrives, with no context or care given to what came before
it.
ot insisting on anything, I just feel that if there is someone
>> (like me lol) who is willing to take on full development and integration
>> cycle, there aren't much reason to reject such enhancements.
>>
>> сб, 20 апр. 2024 г. в 23:31, David Alayachew :
>>
>>>
Your Bag suggestion has been asked so frequently that there is an FAQ entry
in the official Java Docs.
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/22/docs/api/java.base/java/util/doc-files/coll-designfaq.html#a3
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:25 PM ІП-24 Олександр Ротань <
rotan.olexa...@gmail.com> wrote:
umbers of other programmers that I
> introduced to Java, especially switchers. Many of then feel those
> "wordiness" of Java and it repulses potential developers, especially when
> there is C# just by the corner. I think that Java has really strong sides,
> but I would love to
rstand that performance is not as valuable as
> flexibility and clarity, it is still crucial, at least because of it being
> the main factor server maintenance cost after all.
>
> сб, 20 апр. 2024 г. в 00:32, David Alayachew :
>
>> It is not the goal of Java to be verbose, b
list
.stream()
.withIndex()
.filter(WithIndex.filter(predicate))
.mapToIndex()
.findFirst()
.orElse(-1)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM wrote:
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"David Alayachew"
> *To: *"Remi Forax"
> *
-1 it would be more
> suitable to use OptionalInt instead, but I would like to hear community
> opinion about that.
>
> сб, 20 апр. 2024 г. в 00:02, David Alayachew :
>
>>
>> No Rémi, I don't think your idea is the right approach. You are working
>> on the wrong le
.
But going out of order like this slows down the system and forces reviewers
to take extra steps that they wouldn't have to if you had followed protocol.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:02 PM David Alayachew
wrote:
>
> No Rémi, I don't think your idea is the right approach. You are working on
>
No Rémi, I don't think your idea is the right approach. You are working on
the wrong level of abstraction.
Many users ask requests like this all the time, and what you are suggesting
would be even more error-prone than the equivalent for loop or the IntStream
suggestion that the user above
is feature?
Thank you for your time and consideration!
David Alayachew
I actually plan to follow through on that email. I just can't right now
because of work emergencies. Literally as soon as those calm down, top of
my list is to give Viktor the lost of code examples where I am using the
windowBy Gatherer he gave me.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 6:24 PM wrote:
> Hello,
for detecting resource
leaks?
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:02 PM David Alayachew
wrote:
> And as a side note, I did some pretty in-depth research on the topic, and
> stumbled on this post on the lambda mailing list during Java 8's creation.
> I am adding it, as it seems to be conside
-August/002195.html
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:00 PM David Alayachew
wrote:
>
> Hello Amber Dev Team and Core Libs Dev Team,
>
> I am making my own implementation of java.util.stream.Stream that reads
> data from the internet lazily. It's basically
> java.nio.file.Files.lines(
unclosed because there are no compiler warnings or errors if I do so.
Are there any plans to make it easier to detect potential resource leaks?
Ideally with a compiler warning or error?
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
[1] = https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77959436
Thank you to Stuart, Michel, and Joe for taking care of closing my
enhancement and adding helpful comments, I appreciate it!
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, 5:13 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Since I am abandoning this idea, could someone close my JBS ticket?
>
> And please link this message in
, 2024 at 5:10 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for your response!
>
> So, I had thought of that before posting this email, and mentally, I had
> hand-waved away the concern by saying that there were plenty of situations
> where equality would still be useful witho
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 03:57:58 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used t
again.
And I see the value of "socializing", as @Alan Bateman
put it. I had thought this idea through plenty,
but I can only see from my perspective.
Thank you all for your time and help!
David Alayachew
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:26 AM Holo The Sage Wolf
wrote:
> How beneficial is
on that takes in T is fair game. This allows
flexibility, and lets developers keep their objects simple, thus
facilitating things like DOP.
Now, perhaps this makes more sense on the BiPredicate interface instead.
However, since this was more equality focused, I figured Objects was a
better fit.
Any thoughts?
Thank you all for your time and help!
David Alayachew
made for me, and I will post a new email thread either tomorrow or the day
after that shows my experience with it. My hope is that I can convince you
that this function absolutely is worth adding.
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:29 PM Viktor Klang
wrote
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:52:56 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:52:56 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 17:05:59 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> Your API is risky as well: it won't get a compile error if you add a new
> field but forgot to add that field to equality checks too. And since
> initialization happens in ``, your said error is quite easy to detect
> if this class is ever
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:52:56 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:52:56 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 15:36:59 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> David Alayachew has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Rather than reiterating the precondition, let's explain why the method
>> fail
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide
> the values that we will check for equality.
Dav
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide
> the values that we will check for equality.
Dav
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide
> the values that we will check for equality.
Dav
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide
> the values that we will check for equality.
Dav
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 04:21:02 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 04:21:02 GMT, David Alayachew wrote:
>> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
>> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
>> for equality, and then provide the functions which will
> Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
> enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
> for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide
> the values that we will check for equality.
Dav
Adding a function to Objects in order to facilitate equality checking and
enhance readability. You simply specify the 2 objects that you want to check
for equality, and then provide the functions which will be used to provide the
values that we will check for equality.
-
Commit
Hello Magnus,
Thank you for closing my bug! Terribly sorry to ask another favor, but
could you link the following link for traceability in the JBS submission?
https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/2024-January/008488.html
Thank you again for the time and help!
David Alayachew
On Mon
And this may also be better named as a split method instead of the long
conditionalWindowFixed.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:17 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Oh, I made a mistake. Let me try it again.
>
> If the predicate is true, add the element to the current list (create list
> pri
at 1:05 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Hello Core Libs Dev Team,
>
> I have been reading through JEP 461 (https://openjdk.org/jeps/461) about
> Gatherers, and I'm really excited for what this will enable for us.
>
> By far, the most important functionality that this API facilitate
think this is worth adding is because it facilitates a really
common use case. We may not want all windows to be the same size.
Is this something worth adding to the Gatherers API?
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
amber-...@openjdk.org
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:29 PM Bradley Willcott
wrote:
> Hi there.
> I am sorry if this is 'off subject'. However, where do I go to propose a
> new java feature? And please be nice :-).
>
> Thanks,
> Brad.
>
Try and search up the idea before posting though. A lot of people have made
feature requests before you.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:40 PM David Alayachew
wrote:
> amber-...@openjdk.org
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:29 PM Bradley Willcott
> wrote:
>
>> Hi there.
>>
bovementioned article --
https://inside.java/2023/12/15/switch-case-effect/#other-switch-tricks
Could someone help me close this on JBS? Or should it just not be closed at
all?
Here is a link to the JBS -- https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319802
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
nput)
> ? trueFunction.apply(input)
> : falseFunction.apply(input)
> ;
>
> }
>
> }
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:12 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> It has been a month since I sent this proposal. Since no one has told me
> that this is a
It has been a month since I sent this proposal. Since no one has told me
that this is a terrible idea, I will submit this as an enhancement to JBS,
and once the ticket is made, start work on creating a pull request.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 3:13 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Whoops, bad imp
Alternatively, point me in the direction of the repo, and I'll be happy to
take a crack at it.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:54 PM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> Thank you for posting this!
>
> This feature will be a blessing, and I can't wait for it to drop.
>
> Cou
.
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:26 PM Mark Reinhold
wrote:
> https://openjdk.org/jeps/461
>
> Summary: Enhance the Stream API to support custom intermediate
> operations. This will allow stream pipelines to transform
Whoops, bad import.
Please replace the following line with the one after it.
> import java.util.function.Function;
> import java.util.function.*;
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 3:09 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have an idea that I want to run by you all
s are a functional transformation of the input. That way,
intent is clarified. But if we go that route, maybe this function should
get a better name to capture that? testThenApply? ternaryTransform?
ternaryApply?
Thank you for your time and help!
David Alayachew
Oh, I see that you are referring to JavaDoc tags as opposed to Java
Annotations. In that case, nevermind.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:59 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> Hello Pavel,
>
> I am not on the teams of any of the mailing lists you responded to, but I
> feel confident that
the status quo.
It may help to remember that annotations are written much like how you
write a class or an interface. Therefore, their naming conventions follow
those of classes and interfaces, which is to say, they start with an upper
case letter.
Thank you for reaching out!
David Alayachew
On Mon, Aug
ng _ as identifer without --enable-preview) instead.
>
> Chen Liang
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:43 AM David Alayachew
> wrote:
>
>> Wait, nevermind. Don't ignore. I was able to recreate this issue on the
>> command line using the abovementioned JDK. Could someone come
at 2:26 AM David Alayachew
wrote:
> H, this one might actually be IDE specific. Please ignore.
>
H, this one might actually be IDE specific. Please ignore.
lassLoaders.java:188)
at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:526)
at ToDoList.main(ToDoList.java:73)
Attached is the zip. StackOverflow was not much help, so I thought I would
reach out here.
Thank you all for your time and help!
David Alayachew
<>
via the
ordinal of the enum (giving me a priority queue of strategies until I find
one that solves the problem). So for me, the order matters greatly, and I
think that it should be reflected in the API.
Thank you for your time!
David Alayachew
58 matches
Mail list logo
