> Would it make sense to use CopiesList only for n > 0 This can break serialization. When CopiesList(0, e) is serialized and deserialized back, it will be in an invalid state.
> I believe it makes sense to override CopiesList.equals() Also: contains(), iterator(), listIterator() пн, 3 дек. 2018 г. в 14:19, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>: > Thank you Tagir! > > I think your solution is quite clever, and the fix looks good. > > While we are here: Would it make sense to use CopiesList only for n > > 0, and make nCopies() and nCopies().subList() return > Collection.emptyList() otherwise? > > This would allow to remove the check for n == 0 in a couple of places. > Also an unnecessary reference to the `element` wouldn't be kept. > > With kind regards, > Ivan > > > On 12/2/18 9:27 PM, Tagir Valeev wrote: > > Hello! > > > > Please review and sponsor the optimized implementation of > > Collections.nCopies().hashCode(): > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214687 > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tvaleev/webrev/8214687/r1/ > > > > Previous discussion thread: > > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-November/056843.html > > > > Thanks to Zheka Kozlov for the original proposal. Also thanks to Ivan > > Gerasimov for the simplification idea: (x & 0x8000_0000) != 0 => x < > > 0. > > > > With best regards, > > Tagir Valeev > > > > -- > With kind regards, > Ivan Gerasimov > >
