Here is my 100% personal opinion: I don't like the copyShuffle. To me, the rules are quite clear: sort shuffle reverse etc... -> perform modification in place sorted shuffled reversed etc... -> answer a copy I hope the methods comments are clear. Does PBE tells about these conventions? It would be a good thing.
And I don't like to have mutexes in base library, the less we have, the better. If a user is going to modify the same object concurrently, he/she takes care of mutual exclusion. 2013/9/23 Max Leske <[email protected]> > Sven suggested posting this on the list for discussion, so here you go: > > Maybe this should be discussed on the list, your are going to break API. > > Note that there is also #sort and #sorted with similar copy behavior. > > Also, I am not sure that basic operations should use mutexes to protect > themselves by default: there is a cost when you are a single threaded user. > Even in Java there are synchronized and non-synchronized versions of > collections. IMHO, the protection should happen in your app, and basic > collections do not have to be thread safe. > > Sven > > #shuffle does not use Collection>>mutexForPicking as other users of > #randomForPicking demonstrate. This can lead to race conditions (found in > our application). > > In addition, there are now #shuffle, #shuffled, #shuffleBy: and > #shuffledBy: where #shuffled and #shuffledBy: shuffle a copy and answers > that. This is very confusing. > > I propose a fix where #shuffled and #shuffledBy: are renamed to > #copyShuffle and #copyShuffledBy: and moved to the "copying" protocol. > #shuffle and #copyShuffle will use the mutex to prevent race conditions. > >
