Asking about the interesting behaviours of TreeMap.putAll

[Mike Duigou]

I'm in agreement with Doug on this. "The effect of this call is equivalent to that of calling put(k, v) on this map once for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map." is not the same as "The effect of this call is to call put(k, v) on this map once 
for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map."

For those two statements to have the same interpretation would require classifying the calling of a method, put(k,v), as an effect. I'd prefer if only mutations are considered effects.

Mike

On Mar 5 2012, at 03:10 , Doug Lea wrote:

> On 03/05/12 05:53, David Holmes wrote:
>> Charles,
>> 
>> I just realized that your webrev is for Map not AbstractMap and that it is Map
>> the states putAll does a put() on each entry.
> 
> No, Map says:
> 
> The effect of this call is equivalent to that of calling put(k, v) on this map once for each mapping from key k to value v in the specified map.
> 
> 
> It does NOT say that put is called. There are many similar cases
> in Collections, where specs of some methods are stated in terms of
> behavioral equivalence to others, with no implication that those
> others are actually called. For now-questionable reasons,
> Abstract* classes go further than this and state that they actually
> perform various calls.
> 
> Concrete classes should and do override inhereited javadoc to kill
> these Abstract* descriptions whenever they are overridden
> (which sadly often means pasting them in and the deleting
> some sentences). TreeMap.putAll does so. So I think that
> this is Not A Bug.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
>