From: "Michael Heuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > Proposal #3 (Colebourne - merged from #1 and #2):
> > --
> > public boolean addAll(int index, Collection c){
> > if (preAddAll(index, c)) {
> > result = backingList.addAll(i
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Proposal #3 (Colebourne - merged from #1 and #2):
> --
> public boolean addAll(int index, Collection c){
> if (preAddAll(index, c)) {
> result = backingList.addAll(index, c);
> postAddAll(index, c, result);
> }
>
> However, say you have a
> collection:
>
> { b, a, b, a, c }
>
> and you do:
>
> coll.removeAll( {a, c} );
>
> This removes all the a's and c's, i.e. items with indices 1, 3 and 4.
> However, the value of changeIndex would presumably be 0, and the
should read >> would presumably be 1
---
I haven't been involved in the discussion, but on first glance, I give
Proposal #3 a +1... since it seems to allow for flexibility in event
data, exception handling, and performance by creating subclasses.
On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 10:07, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Three possible designs (so far):
>
Three possible designs (so far):
Proposal #1 (Heuer/MailingList)
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection coll) {
int oldSize = backingList.size();
boolean returnVal = backingList.addAll(index, coll);
int newSize = backingList.size();
if (returnVal) {
