[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3449?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13113184#comment-13113184
]
Dawid Weiss commented on LUCENE-3449:
-------------------------------------
Exactly. Overallocate a bit and allow reaching the +1. I agree "repeating the
same mistakes" is not a good idea, but in this case it may be misleading
because the API is already mirroring juc.BitSet (naming convention), so the
contract comes as an assumption. I'm not that fond of juc API myself (vide a
simplified container API in HPPC), so my opinion has nothing to do with
supporting juc.
bq. Well... I doubt this is easily measured empirically?
Exactly. I think the difference will be minor, if statistically significant at
all (when running inside a larger program and not in a microbenchmark).
> Fix FixedBitSet.nextSetBit/prevSetBit to support the common usage pattern in
> every programming book
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3449
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3449
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/other
> Affects Versions: 3.4, 4.0
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-3449.patch
>
>
> The usage pattern for nextSetBit/prevSetBit is the following:
> {code:java}
> for(int i=bs.nextSetBit(0); i>=0; i=bs.nextSetBit(i+1)) {
> // operate on index i here
> }
> {code}
> The problem is that the i+1 at the end can be bs.length(), but the code in
> nextSetBit does not allow this (same applies to prevSetBit(0)). The above
> usage pattern is in every programming book, so it should really be supported.
> The check has to be done in all cases (with the current impl in the calling
> code).
> If the check is done inside xxxSetBit() it can also be optimized to be only
> called seldom and not all the time, like in the ugly looking replacement,
> thats currently needed:
> {code:java}
> for(int i=bs.nextSetBit(0); i>=0; i=(i<bs.length()-1) ? bs.nextSetBit(i+1) :
> -1) {
> // operate on index i here
> }
> {code}
> We should change this and allow out-of bounds indexes for those two methods
> (they already do some checks in that direction). Enforcing this with an
> assert is unuseable on the client side.
> The test code for FixedBitSet also uses this, horrible. Please support the
> common usage pattern for BitSets.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
