On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 21:34:10 GMT, Stuart Marks <sma...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The specification of `forEachRemaining`, accepting a primitive functional
>> interface, on the primitive iterators is updated to be the same as for
>> `Iterator.forEachRemaining`, specifically the following is added:
>>
>>
>> * <p>
>> * Subsequent behavior of an iterator is unspecified if the action
>> throws an
>> * exception.
>>
>>
>> In addition the specification of `tryAdvance` and `forEachRemaining` on
>> `Spliterator` and the primitive specializations are also updated to include
>> a similar statement:
>>
>>
>> * Subsequent behavior of a spliterator is unspecified if the action
>> throws
>> * an exception.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/PrimitiveIterator.java line 77:
>
>> 75: * <p>
>> 76: * The behavior of an iterator is unspecified if the action modifies
>> the
>> 77: * collection in any way (even by calling the {@link #remove remove}
>> method
>
> It's kind of odd to mention "the collection" here. Iterator is defined as
> being over a collection, but strictly speaking this isn't true; it can be an
> iterator over anything. PrimitiveIterator doesn't say anything more specific
> than this, just that it's a base for iterating primitives... and collections
> cannot contain primitives.
>
> I'm not sure what a better term for this is. Something like, "the underlying
> source of the Iterator"?
Yeah, well spotted. I agree it's awkward. How about we lean on the behavior of
the boxed counterpart:
/**
* Performs the given action for each remaining element until all elements
* have been processed or the action throws an exception. Actions are
* performed in the order of iteration, if that order is specified.
* <p>
* This primitive-based method conforms to the same behavior as its
* boxed counterpart with regards to the action's behavior.
?
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4290
