> On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:51 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> But I, for one, prefer a "user pays" scheme over an "everyone pays" scheme 
>>> (which is what disallowing duplicates would also be).
>> It’s an awkward situation, experience suggests this type of thing bites back 
>> later on, so my inclination is to take the hit in the JDK and not return 
>> dups. The implementation might be able to cache information on the internal 
>> ReflectionData class.
> 
> Please see John's response on this:
> 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/2017-December/000465.html
> 

Thanks for the context. You may be surprised to learn that i still don’t agree 
:-) so i will just state my objection more concisely and move on:

I don’t think as specified the method serves developers very well for the 
common use-case of iterating over the nest mates and performing actions with 
side-effects. A developer will have to write defensive code or, more likely, 
write buggy code that will blow up in the rare case a classfile contain 
duplicates e.g. generated by something other than javac. That rare case may be 
hard to track down and expensive to fix.

Paul.

Reply via email to