On 5/16/15 3:00 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
Hi Stuart,
this change is pretty cool,
Hi Rémi, thanks for looking at this.
In the javadoc of Iterator instead of:
Iterable permsIterable = () -> pc.elements().asIterator();
one can write:
Iterable permsIterable = pc.elements()::asIterator;
Ah, I
Yeah, interesting. I think "convert" has too much of an implication of the
resulting Iterator being independent of the underlying Enumeration, which it
isn't. "View" is a good word, but it has to be understood with a specific
meaning, e.g., List.subList creates a view of an underlying list. Perh
Hi guys, really going at it on a Saturday, eh?
On 5/16/15 3:46 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
I also realized Iterable should typically allow multiple passes over the
collection/enumeration, so this wouldn't feel right. Sorry!
So... I'm happy with Stuart's proposal.
Yep, that's the main reason not
On 2015-05-17 01:02, Remi Forax wrote:
So... I'm happy with Stuart's proposal.
I would also be happy (happier?) with a stream variant:
pc.elements().stream().forEach(this::doSomethingWithPermission);
We are not that far :
pc.elements().asIterator().forEachRemaining(this::doSomethingWithPerm
On 05/17/2015 12:46 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2015-05-16 23:48, Remi Forax wrote:
On 05/16/2015 06:21 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
any reason not to just have Enumeration extend Iterable and
default-implement iterator()?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/enumerable.00/
I
On 2015-05-16 23:48, Remi Forax wrote:
On 05/16/2015 06:21 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
any reason not to just have Enumeration extend Iterable and
default-implement iterator()?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/enumerable.00/
I guess there are compatibility risks I haven't t
Hi Stuart,
this change is pretty cool,
In the javadoc of Iterator instead of:
Iterable permsIterable = () -> pc.elements().asIterator();
one can write:
Iterable permsIterable = pc.elements()::asIterator;
and I wonder if an example with NetworkInterface.getNetworkInterfaces()
is not better,
On 05/16/2015 06:21 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
any reason not to just have Enumeration extend Iterable and
default-implement iterator()?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/enumerable.00/
I guess there are compatibility risks I haven't thought through
completely, but I
think c
> On 16 May 2015, at 01:59, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>
> On 16.05.2015 2:18, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> I don't think you're taking the load factor into account.
> Hm. You're right, HashMap's constructor expects the capacity as the argument.
> I was confused by IdentityHashMap, whose constructor ex
This looks very useful. The javadoc reads well, and I think it is pitched at
the right level ( view the Enumeration as an Iterator ). I expected to see
‘view’ or ‘convert’ in the javadoc, but what you have reads fine too.
-Chris.
> On 16 May 2015, at 01:37, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
On May 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> And/Or should PriorityQueue override addAll and provide a more performant
> implementation for common Collection types ( just like the constructor )?
>
It should be possible to improve this case too: create a new array,
appropriately sized,
Hi,
any reason not to just have Enumeration extend Iterable and
default-implement iterator()?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/enumerable.00/
I guess there are compatibility risks I haven't thought through
completely, but I
think concrete classes that already implement both Enume
On 05/16/2015 02:38 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 05/16/2015 09:35 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Derek,
Personally, I'm for volatile over explicit fence too.
So I'll change the code if Peter don't have objections.
There are no objections. There's one unneeded volatile store to .next
field th
On 05/16/2015 09:35 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Derek,
Personally, I'm for volatile over explicit fence too.
So I'll change the code if Peter don't have objections.
There are no objections. There's one unneeded volatile store to .next
field then in enqueue(), but it is followed by another
Derek,
Personally, I'm for volatile over explicit fence too.
So I'll change the code if Peter don't have objections.
-Dmitry
On 2015-05-16 01:59, Derek White wrote:
> Hi Dmitry, Peter,
>
> I should read my email more frequently - I missed Dmitry's last webrev
> email.
>
> My comments on a pre
15 matches
Mail list logo
