On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:30:05 GMT, Chen Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It ends up something like this:
>>
>>
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> List<String> strings = new LinkedList<>();
>> strings.add("foo");
>> strings.add("bar");
>>
>> Spliterator<String> s = Spliterators.spliterator(strings,
>> Spliterator.DISTINCT); // Don't create iterator yet
>> strings.remove(strings.iterator().next());
>> s.forEachRemaining(System.out::println); // Spliterator creates iterator
>> here, after the .remove call. No CME
>>
>> s = Spliterators.spliteratorUnknownSize(strings.iterator(),
>> Spliterator.DISTINCT); // Eagerly create the iterator
>> strings.remove(strings.iterator().next()); // Modifying after the
>> iterator was created
>> s.forEachRemaining(System.out::println); //
>> ConcurrentModificationException
>> }
>>
>>
>> So it's just a side effect of `spliteratorUnknownSize` needing the iterator
>> to be created already. I think the test skip is valid, then - it's true that
>> this case is no longer lazy like it was.
>
> Yes, seems you cannot create a spliterator with a lazy iterator. This is fine.
Alternatively we can override `stream()` to call the `StreamSupport.stream`
that takes a `Supplier<? extends Spliterator<T>>` instead.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28608#discussion_r2841514718
