> On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:38, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/17 10:34 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On 17 Nov 2017, at 17:18, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> The normative text about binding to the source and subsequent modifications
>>> to the source possibly not being reflected in the stream makes sense.
>>>
>>> I'm having trouble understanding the API note though. What does "optimal"
>>> mean? What about concatenating multiple streams would not be optimal?
>> I updated to:
>> * @apiNote
>> * To preserve optimization opportunities this method binds each stream to
>> * its source and accepts only two streams as parameters. For example, the
>> * exact size of the concatenated stream source can be computed if the exact
>> * size of each input stream source is known.
>> * To concatenate more streams without binding, or nested calls to this
>> * method, try creating a stream of streams and flat-mapping with the
>> * identity function, for example:
>> * <pre>{@code
>> * Stream<T> concat = Stream.of(s1, s2, s3, s4).flatMap(s -> s);
>> * }</pre>
>> We could support three or more streams while preserving some
>> characteristics, that complicates the concatenating spliterator a little
>> bit. Each stream would still need to be bound.
>> Patch updated to include the primitive streams:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8181175-concat-eager-binding/webrev/
>
> OK, this makes a lot more sense. Just a small wording change:
>
> 1361 * To concatenate more streams without binding, or nested calls to
> this
> 1362 * method, try creating a stream of streams and flat-mapping with the
> 1363 * identity function, for example:
>
> I think this would read more clearly if it were changed to "... without
> binding, or without nested calls to this method, ...." I think this applies
> in all four occurrences.
>
Ok, updated in place, thanks,
Paul.
