just use a normal stream / for loop?

there's no reason to use Rx here

than it’s just ugly, it’s tempting using it here

yeah, Kotlin stream will fit that perfectly. Otherwise it’s better to return Observable/Single as result

If I returned Observable/Single then I would need to compel the clients of this code to go reactive as well… I might just keep it as it is.

@User uploaded a file: Untitled

and that version should also be 10x faster

with 10x less allocations

JB: Would be nice if we could apply

map

to

Any

, so I could write:

string.filter { it.isDigit() }.length.map { it >= min && it <= max }

that's

use { }

er,

let

?

one of those

run

?

They don’t return afaik

one of them does

yeah

let

let, did it, nice application

then @yougin you can write oneliner which will beat Rx 100x in performance and readability :

string.filter { it.isDigit() }.length.let { it >= min && it <= max }

Sure, I only wish I could use Kotlin in my daily job 🙂

well, at least I’d use Java 8 (or backported) streams api for that

or made interface reactive

or just

int count = 0;
for (int i = 0, length = string.length(); i < length; i++) {
  char c = string.charAt(i);
  if (Character.isDigit(c) && c >= min && c <= max) {
    count++;
  }
}
return count;

After using Kotlin for quite a while it’s really tempting using Rx to make it functional, it comes at a cost though, so I might even roll it back to ugly regular loops than...

or whatever the logic was

(i haven't really been paying attention)

oh looks like you're comparing the counts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

just counting digits in the string 🙂

in 2016 there should be a lib for that

Hi, in RxKotlin is this function

fun <T> observable(body : (s : Subscriber<in T>) -> Unit) : Observable<T> = Observable.create(body)

. Why is

s

from type

Subscriber<in T>

?.

Observable.create

wants a

OnSubscribe<T>

and

OnSubscribe

extends

Action1<Subscriber<? super T>>

. So why is

s

from type

Subscriber<in T>

and not from type

Action1<Subscriber<in T>>

?