commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Ring <...@jdns.org>
Subject Re: [lang] Pair names still not right or consistent
Date Wed, 04 May 2011 17:29:57 GMT
Hey,

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I think we still have naming problems with the Pair class reflected in this
> Javadoc fragment:
>
>  * @param <L> the first element type
>  * @param <R> the second element type
>
> Either we call them L left and R right, or we call them F first and S
> second, but mixing both is not good IMO.

First and second is better, a Pair is an instance of a 2-tuple, which
is an ordered list of elements. Left and right is no good IMO.

> My preference is for K key and V value.
>
> I still do not like Pair as a name because a pair is: two identical,
> similar, or corresponding things that are matched for use together: a pair
> of gloves; a pair of earrings.
> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pair)
>
> We clearly break this common sense definition.

This is not the common definition in math and computer science.

> Tuple is better, Association is better (if wordier.)
>
> Why is Pair a good name?

A Pair is a 2-tuple, not a tuple. OrderedPair or TwoTuple might be
more "accurate" names but I think Pair is very descriptive, short and
sweet.

> Writing Pair.of(lastName, address) reads ugly and wrong to me. It feels like
> I am writing a bug or using the API incorrectly.

How does that sound wrong? I think it reads rather nicely.

> The association, correspondence, tuple, whatever you call it, of these two
> values is just not a pair of anything. Anything but java.lang.Object... but
> that's not even true since null is not an Object.
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Gary

Regards,
James

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message