I've been on both sides of these "bugs" over the years. The problem in
general is that there is no definition of what "equivalent" means. In
this particular case I don't think there was any need for Map to even
mention the "equivalence":
"Copies all of the mappings from the specified map to this map"
seems pretty clear cut to me. No need to mention put() at all! Given
that put() was mentioned it is not unreasonable to think that there was
a reason why it was mentioned - perhaps because the intent was to
specify this to actually invoke put()! I know that is not the case but
my point is that by mentioning it you raise that possibility.
End result: update CR with this discussion and close as not a defect.
Will await further response from Charles before doing that.
Thanks,
David
On 6/03/2012 3:39 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
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
