If I wrote the Predicate
interface, I'd want to encode in the interface the fact that it's just a function that returns a primitive boolean
, like this:
@FunctionalInterface
public interface Predicate<T> extends Function<T, Boolean> {
boolean test(T t);
@Override
default Boolean apply(T t) {
return Boolean.valueOf(test(t));
}
}
I was wondering, is there a compelling reason Java 8 API designers chose to keep the Predicate
completely separate from Function
? Is there some evidence that they considered doing so and decided against it? I guess similar question goes for all the other 'special' functional interfaces like Consumer
(could be Function<T, Void>
), Supplier
(Function<Void, T>
) and primitive functions like IntFunction
(Function<Integer, T>
).
I haven't thought very deeply and thoroughly about all the ramifications of this, so I'm probably missing something.
EDIT: Some of the answers emphasize the semantic distinction between apply and test. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the distinction, and I agree that it's beneficial to have this distinction. What I don't understand is why a Predicate
is nevertheless not also a Function in
the same way as, e.g., a List
is a Collection
or Double
is a Number
, which is an Object
.
If Predicate
(and all the other special generic functional interfaces, such as Consumer
, Supplier
, IntUnaryOperator
etc.) had this relation with Function
, it would allow one to use it in place where Function
parameter is expected (what comes to mind is composition with other functions, e.g. calling myFunction.compose(myPredicate)
or to avoid writing several specialized functions in an API when such auto(un)boxing implementation as described above would be sufficient)
EDIT 2: Looking at openjdk lambda project I found that primitive functional interfaces used to extend Function
up until this commit from Brian Goetz on 2012-12-19. I couldn't find specific reasons for the change on any of the lambda-dev or JSR experts group mailing lists around that time.