dl at cs.oswego.edu
Mon Oct 3 09:52:04 EDT 2011
On 10/03/11 09:34, √iktor Ҡlang wrote:
> I'd love to be able to specify a Comparator in the constructor so that
> conditional remove doesn't rely on reference-equality or .equals (since
> oftentimes I cannot overload it)
One reasonable way to do this interacts with a decision
I keep flip-flopping on because people make good cases for
all three of the possibilities: What should the map do when
either a mapper or remapper function returns null?
The possibilities are:
1. treat it as a user error, so throw NullPointerException
2. treat it as a (re)mapping failure, so ignore the outcome
3. treat it as a removal
I originally did (2), but arguments that (1) was a safer
option led me to change to it in latest update. But yours
is another of several use cases that make (3) more
attractive -- on the plus side, it allows atomic removal
(that you could use in the above case).
But on the minus side it might lead to unintentional
Further arguments welcome.
More information about the Concurrency-interest