On 11/23/2016 10:05 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Right now, PBQ's spliterator is in violation of
"""A Spliterator that does not report IMMUTABLE or CONCURRENT is
expected to have a documented policy concerning: when the spliterator
binds to the element source;"""
so I think we only get a choice between IMMUTABLE and CONCURRENT. I
propose:
Well, OK. Hopefully no user program will hardwire which
choice is made, in case the implementation changes.
-Doug
--- src/main/java/util/concurrent/PriorityBlockingQueue.java23 Nov 2016
14:51:10 -00001.116
+++ src/main/java/util/concurrent/PriorityBlockingQueue.java23 Nov 2016
15:01:29 -0000
@@ -962,3 +962,6 @@
public int characteristics() {
- return Spliterator.NONNULL | Spliterator.SIZED |
Spliterator.SUBSIZED;
+ return (Spliterator.IMMUTABLE |
+ Spliterator.NONNULL |
+ Spliterator.SIZED |
+ Spliterator.SUBSIZED);
}
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu
<mailto:d...@cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
On 11/22/2016 08:33 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
PriorityBlockingQueue has a late-binding-style, snapshot spliterator
that does not report IMMUTABLE. It *is* immutable ... after the
first
access! Should we add IMMUTABLE?
Probably not.
This might overly constrain future improvements; for example, someday
replacing with some linked structure.
Arguably, if so, we could just change the reported characteristics,
but that could be surprising to users, and possibly lead to subtle
user bugs.
-Doug
