The changes look OK to me. I do prefer the later form but will accept either.
Mike On Jul 25 2013, at 02:31 , Paul Sandoz wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the following patch that fixes two issues with TreeMap > spliterators: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/tl/JDK-8020156-8020009-TreeMap/webrev/ > > It's unfortunate and damn ugly that i resorted to using raw types and a cast > for the EntrySet Spliterator.getComparator method: > > + // Since SORTED is reported and Map.Entry elements are not > comparable > + // then a non-null comparator needs to be returned > + if (tree.comparator != null) { > + // Adapt the existing non-null comparator to compare entries > + // by key > + return Map.Entry.comparingByKey(tree.comparator); > + } > + else { > + // Return a comparator of entries by key, with K assumed to > be > + // of Comparable > + // First obtain the Map.Entry.comparingByKey() comparator > + // as a raw type since K is not declared with > + // a upper bound of Comparable, then cast to the return type > + @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") > + Comparator craw = Map.Entry.comparingByKey(); > + @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") > + Comparator<? super Map.Entry<K, V>> c = > + (Comparator<? super Map.Entry<K, V>>) craw; > + return c; > + } > > > Perhaps rather than reusing a Map.Entry comparator method it is clearer to do > the following: > > return (Comparator<? super Map.Entry<K, V>> & Serializable) > (e1, e2) -> { > @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") > Comparable<? super K> k1 = (Comparable<? super K>) > e1.getKey(); > return k1.compareTo(e2.getKey()); > }; > > ? I marginally prefer that. > > I created a new test java/util/Spliterators/SpliteratorCharacteristics that > we can fill out over time for other collections as and when needed. > > Paul.
