On 04/24/2013 07:24 PM, Akhil Arora wrote:
On 04/24/2013 06:19 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 23/04/2013 20:18, Akhil Arora wrote:
On 04/22/2013 11:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
One thing I meant to ask when forEachRemaining was added was
whether it
should say anything about the "last element"? I see in the webrev that
you've set it for the ArrayList iterators but not the LinkedList
iterator - should it?
done, and added more tests for the state of the iterator after
forEachRemaining returns
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akhil/8005051.2/webrev/
(a portion of version 1 of the webrev has already been pushed to TL as
part of rev 6973
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/98a7bb7baa76)
The remaining changes in the webrev looks okay to me. Also good to have
the test expanded.
So do you think that the javadoc should say anything about the
relationship between forEachRemaining and remove?
Good question. forEachRemaining docs state -
Implementation Requirements:
The default implementation behaves as if:
while (hasNext())
action.accept(next());
so a subsequent remove() should remove the last element.
To avoid blocking the feature, I have filed
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013150 to refine the behavior
of remove and other ListIterator methods after forEachRemaining returns.
I think the fact that the last element can be removed should be
specified as unspecified,
because it's more an artefact of the default implementation than
something which part
of the semantics.
Rémi
