On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:08:51 GMT, Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @johnlinp, thanks for updating the CSR draft; it is much better now.
>>
>> @stuart-marks, I think we could further improve this snippet. This `if`
>> statement seems to use an optimization:
>>
>> if (oldValue != null || map.containsKey(key))
>>
>> I don't think we should include an optimization into the specification
>> unless that optimization also improves readability. Is this the case here?
>> Could this be better?
>>
>> if (map.containsKey(key))
>
> I would even go as far as to rewrite that snippet like this:
>
> if (newValue == null) {
> remove(key);
> } else {
> put(key, newValue);
> }
> return newValue;
>
> This rewrite is possible thanks to the following properties of
> `Map.remove(Object key)`:
>
> 1. A call with an unmapped `key` has no effect.
> 2. A call with a mapped `key` has the same semantics regardless of the value
> that this key is mapped to.
>
> In particular, (2) covers `null` values.
>
> To me, this rewrite reads better; however, I understand that readability is
> subjective and that snippets used in `@implSpec` might be subject to
> additional requirements.
> @pavelrappo The intended effect of the revised snippet is sensible, but again
> I note that it differs from the actual default implementation. Specifically:
> if the map does not contain the key and newValue is null, the default
> implementation currently does nothing, whereas the revised snippet calls
> `remove(key)`. This should have no effect _on the map_ but a subclass might
> override `remove` and this behavior difference is observable. (The typical
> example of this is maintaining a counter of the number of operations. I think
> _Effective Java_ uses that example in discussing subclassing.) I think the
> main priority here is fidelity to what the default implementation actually
> does -- at least, concerning operations on _this_ -- and less on readability.
Although we should really have a conversation on code snippets in API
specifications, this thread is not the place for that. However, I will
minimally comment on some of what you've just said.
1. If a high-fidelity copy is not enough, an identical copy is required; that
suggests a JavaDoc facility for embedding portions of code into doc comments.
2. I have to note that `Map.merge` (a method whose semantics is very close to
that of `Map.compute`) is specified and implemented very similarly to what my
[comment #1](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/714#issuecomment-735843488)
proposed.
> The current snippet proposed by @johnlinp does seem to have the same behavior
> as the default implementation; I would avoid trying to "optimize" this.
> However, it does express the conditions and return value somewhat differently
> from the way the default implementation does. I think those differences are
> not significant to subclasses and are mostly stylistic. The original
> `@implSpec` snippet attempted to handle the cases separately, whereas the
> current proposed snippet minimizes them (while still agreeing with the
> implementation's behavior). I'm not too concerned about this. I think the
> current snippet is acceptable. Again, the main priority is agreement with the
> implementation.
Perhaps there's some confusion. If anything my [comment
#2](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/714#issuecomment-735798573) was
proposing to _remove_ an optimization carried over from the default
implementation.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/714
