Into

[Doug Lea]

On 12/23/12 07:02, Doug Lea wrote:
>
>> Your asking people to take car about the concurrency in their code instead of
>> letting the pipeline taking care of that.
>
> Only for mutative updates, for which they will need to take
> the same care in any choice of seq vs par for any use of forEach.
> So there is nothing much special/interesting about this.
> The main idea is to be uniform about how mutative constructions
> are less fluent/streamy-looking than functional usages.
>

(To continue to re-open old wounds :-)
For extra Bondage&Discipline/friendly-guidance, we could always
re-choose to separately support forEach and parallelForEach methods
and get rid of implicit moding for forEach.
Implicit moding can never hurt you in this sense
for the functional/stateless operations. There are still
several other stateful ones that would require some similar
separation though.

Which might be a variant of what Brian was suggesting a few days ago?


-Doug