RFR  Mistake in documentation of ArrayList#removeRange
martinrb at google.com
Sat Mar 15 13:24:23 UTC 2014
We understand the intent of removeRange better now. I agree that making
further improvements is tricky.
I think we can all agree that the initial patch
is a clear improvement (simple spec bug fix)
fromIndex == size must be OK because it results from a call to clear on an
already empty list.
Maybe we should check that unambitious fix in first.
Changing the spec for removeRange to add more requirements on subclass
implementations seems wrong because there are existing implementations and
because the (underspecified) contract is that removeRange will only be
called from a call to clear, which in turn will ensure that the indices are
legal. Adding more bounds checks now will just add overhead without
catching user mistakes in practice.
Improving the spec to clarify the contract as originally designed by Josh
would be good, but it will be hard to find good wording and get approval
from all the interested parties.
Software is hard.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> On 03/14/2014 02:38 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu
>> <mailto:dl at cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
>> On 03/13/2014 12:34 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> I notice there are zero jtreg tests for removeRange. That should
>> be fixed.
>> I notice there is a removeRange in CopyOnWriteArrayList, but it is
>> package-private instead of "protected", which seems like an
>> Can Doug
>> remember any history on that?
>> CopyOnWriteArrayList does not extend AbstractList, but its
>> sublist does. The sublist relies on COWAL.removeRange only for clear.
>> So COWAL sublist clearing uses the same idea as
>> AbstractList, and gives it the same name, but it is not the
>> same AbstractList method, so need not be protected.
>> Ahh OK, I think the party line for *users* is if they want to remove a
>> range of
>> elements from a list, use list.subList(fromIndex, toIndex).clear (), so
>> no advantage in making COWAL.removeRange a public interface.
> Right. This relates to the question of range checks for removeRange.
> Josh Block created removeRange as part of an incompletely documented
> recipe for AbstractList-based List implementations. It was intended that
> people creating new kinds of Lists implement this as a helper
> method to simplify sublist implementations. It is designed
> to be called only from other public methods that would either themselves
> perform range checks or skip them if statically unnecessary.
> So, there aren't any redundant checks in the default removeRange.
> Leaving this partially exposed as "protected" doesn't quite
> ensure that implementors follow this guidance, but in practice,
> I suspect that they all have. So it is not clear whether changing
> the spec or the implementation would be doing anyone a favor.
More information about the core-libs-dev