Simplifying sequential() / parallel()

[Brian Goetz]

for-loops that mutate uplevel locals or use nonlocal control flow will 
not be so transformable.  (Supporting this was one of the goals of BGGA.)

Transforming an existing for-loop, and then discovering that your stream 
source is controlled by other code that has decided to go parallel on 
you without you realizing it, will cause trouble.

So the constraints on "when can I use statefulness in my lambdas" is 
pretty much as messy as "when is it safe to mutate fields of objects". 
(This problem was big enough it needed a whole book.)

On 3/22/2013 2:26 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
> Doug writes
>
>  >don't belong in any stream op not called forEach
>
> I'm with you there.
>
> Will we be able to advertise that one can easily rewrite any 'for' loop
> using each()?
>
> This is one of those useful talking points in the introductory articles:
> See, these new features aren't completely alien. You can take any for
> loop and transform it like so... If so, then forEach is an apt,
> intuitive name. Otherwise, some distance is needed.
>
> Joe
>
> On Mar 22, 2013 11:57 AM, "Doug Lea" <dl at cs.oswego.edu
> <mailto:dl at cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 03/22/13 10:07, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>
>         Stateful programming has its issues but that ship has already
>         sailed (in Java).
>
>
>     Although it is worth bearing in mind that most stream functionality
>     wrt Collections exploits the fact that operations within
>     traversals are already known to avoid some of the worst unexpected
>     side-effects -- mutating a collection while you are traversing.
>     Which normally leads to ConcurrentModificationExceptio__n for
>     iterators. A variant of this is preserved when applicable
>     in Spliterator implementations. People learn quickly to avoid them.
>     (That's the subject of some of the specs Paul Sandoz has been
>     adding, which can't be nailed down very well in general because
>     they are quality-of-implementation issues, but he is trying anyway :-)
>
>     Anyway, as the chief advocate for cool mutative algorithmics
>     in this group, I'm still in favor of saying they don't belong
>     in any stream op not called forEach.
>
>     -Doug
>
>