On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Combination of the proposals:
>
> public interface MapIterator extends Iterator {
> /** Is there another key to iterate to */
> boolean hasNext();
> /** Get the next key */
> Object next();
> /** Get the value associated with the last key retrieved from next() */
> Object getValue();
> /** Set the value associated with the last key retrieved from next()
> OPTIONAL*/
> void setValue();
> /** Remove the last entry returned by next() OPTIONAL */
> void remove();
> /** Get a Map.Entry implementation for the last key retrieved */
> Map.Entry getMapEntry();
> }
>
> public interface ResetableIterator extends Iterator {
> /** Reset the iterator back to the start */
> void reset();
> }
>
Stephen,
This looks good to me.
> I still kindof feel that there should be a getKey() on MapIterator, although
> it would duplicate next().
It doesn't really duplicate next(), since getKey() wouldn't advance the
iterator.
The only reason I can imagine not to have the getKey method would be to
save the MapIterator the trouble of hanging on to a reference to the value
returned by next(), but we'll need that anyway to support getMapEntry().
I say add getKey too.
> Any advantage in defining
> isSettable()
> isRemovable()
> on the interface? Not very collections like but perhaps useful.
That's also probably difficult if not impossible to support in adapters,
and like you said, isn't very collections-like. My preference would be to
leave that out of the interface.
- Rod
> Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
