On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 00:23:38 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I don't think the complexity of this proposed fix to `setAll` is warranted. I > would prefer a simpler fix that returns > `false` if both the current list and the new list are empty, and `true` > otherwise. @kevinrushforth Thanks for your feedback! I have just pushed a commit that greatly simplifies `setAll` by returning early if both lists are empty and continuing with `clear`, `addAll` otherwise. > If there is a good justification for handling the corner case of calling > `setAll` with the same list of elements in > exactly the same order (and I am not sure that there is), then a better > approach might be to do the check before > actually modifying the list, returning early if the new list and the current > list were identical. Fair point. I'm afraid I don't have any justification other than that, in my opinion, this is a violation of the method's contract (which is debatable). I suppose it's best to leave it as-is for this case for now. --- > Unfortunately, I don't see @TheMrMilchmann OCA in the approval queue. Could > you please (re)send it to > oracle-ca...@oracle.com? Thanks! @robilad That's strange. I have sent a mail on Aug 13 and received no indication that it didn't go through (though neither did I receive an automated confirmation that it arrived - if such a thing is set up). Anyway, I just resent it. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/284
