On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 04/16/2018 12:04 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/14/2018 02:32 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > I think there are scenarios where LIFO is useful, but the question is if these are frequent enough to warrant LIFO / > FIFO as an option. > >> needs LIFO in the firtst place with such a structure...). > > There seems to be no promise in the API documentation that this is LIFO, but of course switching to FIFO changes the > behavior of the structure for the better (as you assume) or for the worse (for people who build on the current > implementation detail that it is LIFO). > So the question is: Can we do that in 1.6.x or even in 1.7.x from our guarantees we give point of view?
Given that code behavior itself is documentation, and this is hardly what we can call an 'edge case' (it's the actually intended functionality)... I'd suggest we can't modify this unilaterally until 2.0. If there is a desire to change this for library consumers prior to 2.0, perhaps a build-time toggle? Provided there is no interest in offering two behaviors simultaneously.