On Wednesday 07 January 2015 12:02:42 Chris Hegarty wrote:
> > Yes, but that exactly how it works now, that's why second invocation of
> > hasNext() returns false and we can see the issue Remi is talking about. If
> > hasNext() will be throwing ConcurrentModification than will work as early
> > warning system that something is wrong with this iterator.
>
> The changes in the patch I suggested will change existing behavior. In
> Remi's case, hasNext() will now return true, and next() will throw CME.
That's correct, yes, sorry, missed the idea. That's actually good solution,
much better than throwing CME from hasNext().
--
Regards,
Stas
