I'm fairly sure you could stick SortedSet on both JumboEnumSet and the normal one without impacting the performance of the existing methods. The sorting may not be O(1), but even that should either (A) be easy (for Jumbo), or (B) be irrelevant (scanning 64 bits is going to be O (1) by virtue of that upper limit, no matter what you do).
On Aug 6, 4:10 am, Stephen Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 5, 6:00 pm, Alexey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > According to the docs, SortedSet expects to function based on either > > natural order (if the elements implement Comparable) or in accordance > > with whatever Comparator is provided. The only functional difference > > between the SortedSet contract and EnumSet API are all the methods in > > SortedSet dealing with subsets (first, subSet, etc.). Still doesn't > > seem to be any good reason why EnumSet doesn't implement SortedSet. > > EnumSet is a specialized set intended to allow enums to replace > integer bitflags. Because of how this is implemented I don't think > there is an efficient way to implement the SortSet interface. So the > question is kind of should they have put in a poor-performing > implementation and made note of it in the JavaDocs(Followed shortly > thereafter with a FindBugs pattern saying not to use those methods.), > or just leave well enough alone and let people just use the existing > SortedSet implementations if they really need it? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
