MumbleCloseable

[Remi Forax]

On 06/25/2013 03:22 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> As someone said one the lambda-dev mailing list, there is no TWR in C#
>> because close is called at the end of the for-each instruction.
>> Why do you want user to care about releasing resources manually if this
>> can be done automatically ?
>
> Because it can't be.
>
> What happens if:
>  - no one executes a terminal op

This should be flagged by IDEs as useless operation even if there is no 
resource involved.
See my answer to Stephan Hermann.

>  - a terminal op throws an exception

There is a TWR in the code that loop over the Spliterator in the 
terminal operation.

>  - the user asks for an Iterator/Spliterator and doesn't exhaust it

don't allow an escape hatch on stream that are constructed on an 
implicit resource
(there is no such issue if the resource is explicit).

>
> This is analogous the problem with IO streams, where:
>
>   InputStream is = ...
>   use(is);
>   is.close();
>
> isn't good enough; you want try-finally (or TWR) to ensure that 
> cleanup happens.

yes, if you explicitly use the InputStream, you have to use a TWR,
if you implicitly uses a resource, instead of using a leaking* 
abstraction as you propose (all streams become AutoCloseable),
it's better in my opinion to do the TWR inside the terminal operation.

>
> What you suggest increases the probability that the stream is closed, 
> but doesn't guarantee it. 

if you open it and close it in the same terminal operation, there is no 
leak.

> (It also is far more intrusive in the implementation.)

yes, but I think it can be abstracted if you have a way to represent a 
pair spliterator/resource.

Rémi
*sorry for the pun