Based upon feedback we've decided to withdraw this change. It will remain removeIf()
Mike On Sep 4 2013, at 14:08 , 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/ > > Thanks, > > Mike
