Ah okay, that is not how I would have phrased that spec if that’s the intention. I’d have gone with something like: “the iterator must reflect all changes that occurred prior to its construction, and may (but need not) reflect some (or all, or none) of the modifications subsequent to its construction”. But I’m not the arbiter of what counts as “clear” here. Thanks for your patience.
From: Viktor Klang <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 10:19 AM To: Yagnatinsky, Mark (Associated) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [External] : weakly consistent iterators spec seems misleading? This part: «they are guaranteed to traverse elements as they existed upon construction exactly once, » establishes what must occur—it establishes the lower-bound of recency of items reflected. This part: «and may (but are not guaranteed to) This part: «they are guaranteed to traverse elements as they existed upon construction exactly once, » establishes what must occur—it establishes the lower-bound of recency of items reflected. This part: «and may (but are not guaranteed to) reflect any modifications subsequent to construction.» establishes what may occur—that the upper-bound of recency is not guaranteed to be the same as the lower bound, but may be higher (more recent than the lower bound). If the lower AND upper bound of recency was the exact same, then it would be indistinguishable from a snapshot of the collection at the time the iterator was obtained. On 2026-03-30 15:11, Yagnatinsky, Mark wrote: Sorry if I’m being dense here but… in that case, what’s the point of the first part of that sentence? Is it just saying that the iterator will not present a hopelessly out-of-date view of the container? From: Viktor Klang <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:38 AM To: Yagnatinsky, Mark (Associated) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] : weakly consistent iterators spec seems misleading? No, those two statements are different. What bridges the two is: «and may (but are not guaranteed to) reflect any modifications subsequent to construction. »» On 2026-03-29 03: 27, Yagnatinsky, Mark wrote: Hmm… so you’re saying that the most natural No, those two statements are different. What bridges the two is: «and may (but are not guaranteed to) reflect any modifications subsequent to construction.»» On 2026-03-29 03:27, Yagnatinsky, Mark wrote: Hmm… so you’re saying that the most natural interpretation of “[…] guaranteed to traverse elements as they existed upon construction exactly once” Is roughly “[…] guaranteed to traverse elements as they existed upon construction-or-later exactly once” Or not quite? -- Cheers, √ Viktor Klang Software Architect, Java Platform Group Oracle ________________________________ The information contained in this message is intended only for the recipient, and may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. S&P Global Inc. reserves the right, subject to applicable local law, to monitor, review and process the content of any electronic message or information sent to or from S&P Global Inc. e-mail addresses without informing the sender or recipient of the message. By sending electronic message or information to S&P Global Inc. e-mail addresses you, as the sender, are consenting to S&P Global Inc. processing any of your personal data therein. -- Cheers, √ Viktor Klang Software Architect, Java Platform Group Oracle
