I'm in agreement with Doug on this. "The effect of this call is equivalent to that of calling put(k, v) on this map once for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map." is not the same as "The effect of this call is to call put(k, v) on this map once for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map."
For those two statements to have the same interpretation would require classifying the calling of a method, put(k,v), as an effect. I'd prefer if only mutations are considered effects. Mike On Mar 5 2012, at 03:10 , Doug Lea wrote: > On 03/05/12 05:53, David Holmes wrote: >> Charles, >> >> I just realized that your webrev is for Map not AbstractMap and that it is >> Map >> the states putAll does a put() on each entry. > > No, Map says: > > The effect of this call is equivalent to that of calling put(k, v) on this > map once for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map. > > > It does NOT say that put is called. There are many similar cases > in Collections, where specs of some methods are stated in terms of > behavioral equivalence to others, with no implication that those > others are actually called. For now-questionable reasons, > Abstract* classes go further than this and state that they actually > perform various calls. > > Concrete classes should and do override inhereited javadoc to kill > these Abstract* descriptions whenever they are overridden > (which sadly often means pasting them in and the deleting > some sentences). TreeMap.putAll does so. So I think that > this is Not A Bug. > > -Doug > > >
