IntStreams and the case of the missing reduce
richard.warburton at gmail.com
Tue Jan 7 11:55:34 PST 2014
I guess I am slightly worked up over this because reduce() is so
> fundamental to functional programming and because it comes up so often when
> doing anything really, that I hate to see it curtailed like this. Also I
> am not a big fun of assymetrys in APIs.
I'm sure we can all sympathise these kind of things, not everyone agrees on
the perfect API.
One thing I will observe from reading this thread is that you argued
against the asymmetry in the public API, you haven't looked at the
asymmetry that you've introduced yourself. You have an implementation
that's sequential only which means you've got an asymmetry between the
parallel and serial versions of the API. Is that better or worse?
More information about the lambda-dev