You must have misunderstood. Even so, a snarky answer is uncalled for. The specification of Object.equals() is violated by the example, but that outcome would be *required* by your version of the specification of Set.equals().
Do you really think that the specification of Object.equals() is unimportant? Lots of code relies on it. > On May 12, 2020, at 2:37 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >>> The containsAll() and equals() methods both use the membership contract of >>> the receiver, not the argument. Unfortunately, the equals() specification >>> says, >>> >>> Returns true if the specified object is also a set, the two sets have the >>> same size, and every member of the specified set is contained in this set >>> (or equivalently, every member of this set is contained in the specified >>> set). >>> >>> As should be clear from this discussion, the "equivalently" clause is >>> incorrect -- another spec bug. >> Changing Set.equals() in this way would make Set inconsistent with Object. >> Do you really think that is a good idea? > > [example of asymmetry of equals] > > Your example illustrates that the "equivalently" clause is incorrect. I > prefer specifications to have fewer incorrect statements. > > s'marks >
