![]() ![]() Adding them on Collection has also the added benefit that as a user, all Clojure collections or any other implementations not in the JDK also get a good enough implementation of the method reversed(). Providing a default implementation matters more for external libraries.Īnd that's why i think we do not need the interface SequencedCollection, because all these methods can be declared on Collection instead. If we don't have an efficient reversed view, I don't see a point of declaring a collection sequencedĬollections in the JDK provides more efficient implementations, this is what the code this PR does. ![]() The quote is from the javadoc of reversed (see above), it seems the JEP and the javadoc disagree :( This has nothing to do with the paycheck of some of us.įine, then let's agree to try and avoid using that paycheck as an argument for or against the merit of any PR. I believe that introducing the interface SequencedCollection instead of adding the methods to Collection (i get it's not the exact same semantics) have an impact that is too big and will require more work than it should for both the maintainers of the JDK and the maintainers of the libraries having their own implementations of the Java collections. Please embrace this opportunity to improve rather than drafting your defence. Rather direct and tough feedback, I'll admit. Please do not avoid critisism by claiming to be misunderstood. ![]() Hi Erik, I think you misunderstood me, currently Oracle supports most of the development of the OpenJDK financially, that's a fact and i'm glad that Oracle has taken that mantle because I'm remembering very well the sad state of Java at the time SUN was dying. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |