On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Burn Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finally, I may be naive but I can see no technical objection to making the > implementation of the CasIterator support a more forgiving and efficient > interface to user code, especially since the code changes may be simpler > than the documentation changes. >
... and either would be simpler than having this discussion. ;) I just think it doesn't make sense for a method called hasNext to advance the iterator. Perhaps it's the very fact that I've learned one must be vigilant about this when implementing an Iterator that makes this so ingrained to me, so much so that I am objecting on principle here. I have to agree that there isn't any good reason why the framework should actually call hasNext two times. UIMA probably doesn't need to be providing a Public Service teaching people the hard way how to write iterators. :) So I guess bottom line I'm +0 to applying this patch - not something I particularly care about doing, but if there are others who think it is, go ahead. -Adam
