On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 05/11/2014 00:06, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> : >> So ... there is the question whether we are tightening the spec for >> Attributes and its subclasses or only for Attributes. >> Subclasses of Attribute that would change the order are likely to be >> very rare (is there a use case?) - I'm OK with those becoming >> non-spec-compliant subclasses, especially given that they will >> continue to work just fine in practice. So in my proposal the >> tightening applies to subclasses as well. > > What you have is okay but I think if I were doing this then I would keep the > existing wording in the constructor (the update to the class description is > good). The reason is that the new wording might distract the reader into > thinking about the iteration order of the given Attributes when it's just > not interesting here.
I don't much care either way, so the spec change to Attributes(Attributes) is reverted, as you wish. Webrev refreshed.
