ARM Blocks: ease of use and for loops

Reinier Zwitserloot reinier at
Wed Nov 11 13:13:45 PST 2009

I think the idea was thus:

Just like the concept of a FilterInputStream, the google codebase contains
many instances of filtering Iterators. Possibly, for example, a MapIterator.

The concept of having a CloseableIterator does not survive filtering. This
is bad.

I think that was the gist of the message. The argument has some merit, I

--Reinier Zwitserloot

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at
> >wrote:
> > I can't stand the thought of having to descend into RandomAccess-style
> > hell, so passing an iterator through these methods will likely wipe the
> > Closeable right off, making the foreach improvement less applicable.
> I can't quite parse this sentence.  What is RandomAccess-style hell?  What
> does it mean to "wipe" a Closeable?
> I wouldn't expect methods that receive an Iterator to close it, since the
> caller retains a reference to it.  Can you please explain the issue you're
> concerned about?
> -Neal

More information about the coin-dev mailing list