I would say you could create delegating iterables/iterators for those types. What would be an alternative would you have preferred?
Dale On 31 July 2012 14:17, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes/No. You're still forced to only use it with things that can be > Iterables, yet there's a whole category of stuff where foreach makes sense, > but can't be represented in this manner. > > One of the more obvious examples here is something like a stream of lines > coming over a network socket, in which you want the body of the foreach > expression to be executed asynchronously for each incoming line (perhaps by > dispatching to a thread pool), and for the expression as a whole to be > non-blocking. > > > On 31 July 2012 08:15, Roland Tepp <luol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, couldn't resist, but let your class implement Iterable and voila - >> the foreach is extended! >> >> esmaspäev, 30. juuli 2012 15:55.30 UTC+3 kirjutas Ricky Clarkson: >> >>> 6. foreach is not open for extension, i.e., it only works with Iterables >>> and arrays. >>> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
