> On 31 Jan 2017, at 16:40, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com > <mailto:paul.san...@oracle.com>> wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2017, at 16:16, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com >> <mailto:marti...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com >> <mailto:paul.san...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>> ConcurrentSkipListSet >>> — >>> >>> 76 * <p>Bulk operations that add, remove, or examine multiple elements, >>> 77 * such as {@link #addAll}, {@link #removeIf} or {@link #forEach}, >>> 78 * are <em>not</em> guaranteed to be performed atomically. >>> 79 * For example, a {@code forEach} traversal concurrent with an {@code >>> 80 * addAll} operation might observe only some of the added elements. >>> >>> toArray was removed, and it’s not atomic. Same for many other cases. >>> >>> We tried to maintain complete lists of non-atomic operations, but those >>> became stale as new methods got added to superclasses/superintterfaces. >>> Even toString is non-atomic! Give up or be pedantically exhaustive? >> >> The removal “toArray” is arguably a specification change, and it’s removal >> could be misconstrued as implying it is now atomic. So i would just leave >> the existing documentation as is. >> >> But ... the problem is that the docs implied that all the other operations >> *were* guaranteed atomic, which became untrue when y'all added forEach and >> friends. That is, this is supposed to be a doc bug fix. And toString was >> always missing from the list. >> > > Is not toString a bulk operation that examines multiple elements? > > > Yes! > > I know toArray fits within that remit, but i just prefer to keep to the > original documentation, since the change might be incorrectly perceived as a > change in behaviour. > > > I'm trying to expand the list of non-atomic methods without exhaustively > listing all its members. > > It’s a very mild objection, please override if you feel i am being overly > conservative here! > > Would having exhaustive lists of methods make you happier? That would be > more precise, but too pedantic for my taste.
I think that would be too pedantic as well. At this late stage in 9 i prefer to leave things as they are and not fiddle. Revise for 10? Paul.
