Could we please change the operator-to-method mapping to match that exposed by Kotlin? I think it's very important to have consistency here, because there'll be libraries designed for Kotlin that will use these method names and which won't be compatible with java-oo. Perhaps java-oo needs to be forked for this.
Kotlin's conventions: http://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/operator-overloading.html
Unfortunately, Kotlin doesn't use "reverse" methods. It uses "extension" methods, which are static methods in utility classes. It's not possible to predict where Kotlin might put them, so I don't know if they can be supported. See http://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/extensions.html and https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28294509/accessing-kotlin-extension-functions-from-java/36452456#36452456 I would keep supporting the Rev convention.
Could we please change the operator-to-method mapping to match that exposed by Kotlin? I think it's very important to have consistency here, because there'll be libraries designed for Kotlin that will use these method names and which won't be compatible with java-oo. Perhaps java-oo needs to be forked for this.
Kotlin's conventions: http://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/operator-overloading.html
Unfortunately, Kotlin doesn't use "reverse" methods. It uses "extension" methods, which are static methods in utility classes. It's not possible to predict where Kotlin might put them, so I don't know if they can be supported. See http://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/extensions.html and https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28294509/accessing-kotlin-extension-functions-from-java/36452456#36452456 I would keep supporting the
Revconvention.