I know it's probably too late, but it occurred to me that "removeWhere(Predicate)" seems appropriate:
coll.removeWhere(s -> s.size() > 3); On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>wrote: > On 04/09/2013 22:08, Mike Duigou wrote: > > Hello all; > > > > The naming of the Collection.removeIf(Predicate) method has always been > an uncertain choice. We've gone back and forth between naming it removeIf > and overloading the existing removeAll(Collection) with a > removeAll(Predicate). Now that all other library and language decisions > seem to be settled it seems reasonable to make a final decision on this > method naming. > > > > This patch proposes to use the removeAll(Predicate) overload. This > choice is made to increase the discoverability of the method and to "reuse" > the existing user understanding of the removeAll name. There is a minor > source incompatibility induced by overloading the removeAll name--if > explicit null is passed then a compiler cannot resolve which overload to > use. Since null is not a legal value for either overload this source > incompatibility is expected to only affect tests which check to see what > response implementations return for null. The ambiguity can be resolved by > providing a cast to either the Collection or Predicate types to select the > appropriate overload. > > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8024291/0/webrev/ > > > This looks okay to me too. > > -Alan. > > -- mailto:matt...@matthewadams.me <matt...@matthewadams.me> skype:matthewadams12 googletalk:matt...@matthewadams.me http://matthewadams.me http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams
