Hi Mike, I suppose there could also be implementations of removeIf that always throw UOE regardless of whether an element matched or not i.e. those that override just to throw UOE.
So perhaps: * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if elements cannot be removed * from this collection. Implementations may throw this exception if a * matching element cannot be removed or if, in general, removal is not * supported. Paul. On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:52 PM, Mike Duigou <mike.dui...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hello all; > > A very small patch that refines the declared conditions under which the > Collection.removeIf() method will throw UOE. The intent of this patch is to > allow the default implementation to be used for immutable collections. It's > important that the default implementations provided and the specifications of > the methods allow for the behaviour which results from using the default > method implementation on any reasonable implementation including immutable > implementations. In this case there was a bug originally written against > j.u.Arrays.asList() The bug asserted that it's removeIf() implementation was > "lazy" and only throws UOE when an element is to be removed. One possible > solution was to add a non-default implementation of removeIf() to the > Arrays.asList()-List. Since the default method definition must also satisfy > other potential immutable implementations we decided to enhance the UOE > conditions rather than paper over the problem by adding a default. > > (There are a couple of other similar issues which will have similar solutions) > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8023339/1/ > > Mike >
