RFR: 8005051: optimized defaults for Iterator.forEachRemaining (original) (raw)

Peter Levart peter.levart at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 14:22:54 UTC 2013

On 04/26/2013 03:06 PM, Remi Forax wrote:

On 04/26/2013 02:50 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:

On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:06 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:

To avoid blocking the feature, I have filed https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013150 to refine the behavior of remove and other ListIterator methods after forEachRemaining returns. I think the fact that the last element can be removed should be specified as unspecified, because it's more an artefact of the default implementation than something which part of the semantics.

I was wondering about that too. What happens if an implementing class decides later on to override the default implementation? If the overriding implementation does not conform to the same behaviour as the default it could break compatibility. Plus one could change code from: while(it.hasNext() { doSomething(it.next()); } doSomethingAtEnd(it); to it.forEachRemaining(this::doSomething} doSomethingAtEnd(it); All implementations must obey the contract of the specification, and no clients should assume any kind of behaviour beyond what that contract says. That said I've lost the context of this particular issue - what is the problem here? What is the state of the Iterator after a call to Iterator.forEachRemaining e.g.: void doSometingAtEnd(Iterator it) { it.remove(); } IMO overriding forEachRemaining implementations should place the iterator in the same state as the default method implementation. We just need to call this out more clearly in the docs. I don't like the fact that the default implementation dictates the semantics of forEachRemaining. It's cleaner to separate the two and says that you can replace the while loop by forEachRemaining only if the iterator is not used after the while loop. Basically, it means that the semantics of forEachRemaining is more like the semantics of the enhanced for loop.

... which is based on Iterable, not Iterator (the Iterator is not accessible in the foreach).

Do you think there could be implementations that are more optimal if this is not dictated? If the same object provides an API for both internal and external iteration and the internal iteration can continue where the external left-off, then it must always be prepared to maintain the state for external iteration, so it's not a big deal to update this state once at the end of internal iteration. Do you imagine a situation where this would actually provide to be difficult or less performant?

What about the following:

Iterator<?> i = ...;

i.forEachRemaining(e -> {...});

i.forEachRemaining(e -> {...});

would the second call to forEachRemaining be specified to not be defined too?

Another interesting question. What about the following usage:

Iterator<?> i = ...;

i.forEachRemaining(e -> { ... if (.. && i.hasNext()) i.next(); // skip one element ... });

Should this be allowed and work as "expected", disallowed and attempted to be prevented, or not defined ?

Regards, Peter

Paul. Rémi

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list