On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 05:51:11 GMT, Nir Lisker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Stuart Marks has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove unnecessary 'final' from a couple places.
>> - Clarify ordering of Collection.addAll and Map.putAll; add links to
>> encounter order.
>> - Make constructors private for several reverse-ordered views.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Collection.java line 511:
>
>> 509: * nonempty.) If the specified collection has a defined
>> 510: * <a href="SequencedCollection.html#encounter">encounter order</a>,
>> 511: * processing of its elements generally occurs in that order.
>
> Shouldn't `remove` also contain such a note? From its docs:
>
> "More formally, removes an element e such that `Objects.equals(o, e)`, if
> this collection contains one or more such elements." Can add something like
> "If the specified collection has a defined *encounter order*, generally
> removes the first encountered element in that order".
No, the stipulation for removing the first element only applies to
explicit-positioned collections like List and Deque.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Collections.java line 374:
>
>> 372: * @apiNote
>> 373: * This method mutates the specified list in-place. To obtain a
>> 374: * reversed-ordered view of a list without mutating it, use the
>
> The term that has been usually used is "reverse-ordered".
Typo.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Collections.java line 380:
>
>> 378: * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the specified list or
>> 379: * its list-iterator does not support the {@code set}
>> operation.
>> 380: * @see List#reversed List.reversed
>
> Is the `@see` tag really useful if you're already linking the method directly?
Requested by another reviewer.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/SequencedCollection.java line 34:
>
>> 32: * from the first element to the last element. Given any two elements,
>> one element is
>> 33: * either before (closer to the first element) or after (closer to the
>> last element)
>> 34: * the other element.
>
> The last sentence seems a bit clumsy owing to the abundance of parenthesized
> content and the confusion of "first element" of the collection with the first
> element of the 2 chosen for the explanation. How about something like:
> "Given any two elements, one element is either before the other element (it
> is closer to the collection's start) or after it (closer to the collection's
> end)"?
Doesn't seem like an improvement.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#discussion_r1171686221
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#discussion_r1171688269
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#discussion_r1171686536
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#discussion_r1171687102
