search

GlenKPeterson / Paguro

Generic, Null-safe, Immutable Collections and Functional Transformations for the JVM
Other
312 stars 24 forks source link

Are you using Unmod interfaces or just the Im (Immutable) ones? #19

Closed GlenKPeterson closed 7 years ago

GlenKPeterson commented 7 years ago

This Might be another leftover from before the Clojure collections. The theory was to add Unmod... versions of the major java.util collections that only deprecate the mutate-in-place methods. Then separately add the Im... (Immutable) interfaces that add back change-methods that return a new changed collection. The thought was that people might want to create a different inheritance hierarchy that still fits into the Java hierarchy without adding anything.

A few years later, I'm less enamored with this idea, basically because I haven't used the Unmod interfaces directly, preferring instead to use the Im interfaces. Also, the PersistentVector can go from mutable to immutable. I think that's a much more useful distinction to represent in a hierarchy. In the interest of still keeping the hierarchy simple, I'd like to put all the change methods from the Im interfaces into the Unmod interfaces. Then make Mutable-List/Set/Map extend Unmod-List/Set/Map instead of Im-List/Set/Map.

I know, there's a RangeOfInt. I plan to add an UnmodSizedIterable and have RangeOfInt extend UnmodSizedIterable. I've only ever used RangeOfInt once...

GlenKPeterson commented 7 years ago

No-one responded, so the toUnmod methods are removed from Transformable and the toMutable methods return the mutable versions of the Clojure collection implementations, not the java.util ones. These changes will be in the 3.0 release which is on the RRB branch and ready to try out now.