RFR: JDK-8133680 add Stream.foldLeft() terminal operation

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan jbluettduncan at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 21:16:46 UTC 2017

> OK, so I think an indexed stream returning pairs of (long,T) is
the answer.

...which I suspect might be worth waiting on Project Valhalla for, if I've
understood you correctly, since an IndexedElement<T> would essentially be a
`long` and object pair, and having the `long` element stored or retrievable
as a `Long` object would be a bit costly compared to having
stored/retrievable as a generic `long` stored on the stack, like what
Project Valhalla is exploring AFAICT.

Alternatively, perhaps having it implement a theoretical interface like
`LongObjectEntry` might be an option, at the expense of cluttering things a


On 21 August 2017 at 22:00, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My preference, naming-wise, is to stick with the current naming scheme
> and refer to such operations as reduceLeft and reduceRight. We have used
> reduce both for the seed accepting, and optional returning methods, and we
> don’t use different names to distinguish those.
> +1
> > I don’t think we can rely on the sequential() trick, since as Tagir
> points out it is global.
> Yes, that's unfortunate for the present purpose.
> The closest thing we have at present is forEachOrdered (as you imply).
> The transform Stream.sorted looks like something close, but it can eagerly
> discard the current ordering.  What I think we want, as an input to
> sequential reduce,
> is something that (a) preserves the encounter order and (b) optionally
> transforms
> it in a predictable way (no-op for reduceLeft, reverse for reduceRight).
> So maybe there is something akin to Stream.sorted that wants to exist:
> Stream.ordered(p), where p is some token that expresses at least the
> null permutation (keep encounter order, but allow previous parallelism)
> and the reverse permutation.
> A complete, somewhat crazy generalization would be something like
> Stream.ordered(LongBinaryOperator comparator), where the comparator
> would decide where to place the stream elements based on an ordinal
> assigned to encounter order.  I don't know if there are middle grounds
> for less powerful distinctions that are useful, and are more powerful
> than just "forward/reverse".
> > My inclination would be to focus on reduceLeft, and spin off reduceRight
> into a separate issue and in addition ponder support for a reverse
> operation, since reduceRight can be built upon that.
> Thanks.
> > It’s possible to develop a reduceRight or reserve operation that does
> something very similar to forEachOrdered when operating in parallel (the
> last FJ task has to complete before given the ok for it’s direct sibling to
> the left to proceed when ready). For good splitters like ArrayList this
> might work well, for bad splitters like Iterator it will be terrible. It
> may be possible in some cases to fuse reverse().toArray().
> Yes, I think so.  Maybe the concept of "ordered()" is too weak; the thing
> we are considering is really turning a stream into a data source with
> two characteristics:  (a) it is ordered, and (b) it is random access.
> If you have a random access data sink (toArray) then, if you can
> determine data source indexes, you can then perform the actual
> reordering when you store the result, instead of earlier.
> So, here's a stream transform that gives those characteristics:
> Stream<IndexedElement<T>> Stream<T>.indexed().
> (Where IndexedElement<T> implements Map.Entry<Long,T>.
> And can be pattern-matched, etc.)
> The semantics is that the elements are associated with a compact
> zero-based set of indexes (which may be either easy or hard to
> compute).  The indexes are compatible with forEachOrdered
> (encounter order).  Those indexes can be used to store the
> original stream's elements into any desired random-access pattern.
> From there, we can get buffering into an array (or a consumer
> function), which can redirect the values to a reducing collector
> that takes the values in whatever order the user wants.
> (The indexed-element guy is also good for numeric array processing.
> It should eventually be a value type.)
> OK, so I think an indexed stream returning pairs of (long,T) is
> the answer.
> — John

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list