Iterator.remove();

[karl wettin]

I have a class wrapping an array[]. This class contains an Iterator.

If the array contains non-primitives, remove() sets array=null;

What about then the array contains primitive classes? I could either set
the value to the system default (i.e. short/int/long/float/byte...=0x0,
boolean=false) or throw a new Error("primitives can't be removed!");

Or should I spend days to change my logics so that the array wrapper
contains an Enumerator instead of Iterator?



karl

 

[Adam Maass]

I have a class wrapping an array[]. This class contains an Iterator.

If the array contains non-primitives, remove() sets array=null;

What about then the array contains primitive classes? I could either set
the value to the system default (i.e. short/int/long/float/byte...=0x0,
boolean=false) or throw a new Error("primitives can't be removed!");

Or should I spend days to change my logics so that the array wrapper
contains an Enumerator instead of Iterator?

throw OperationNotSupportedException.

In fact, the Iterator over Object[] should probably throw
OperationNotSupportedException on remove rather than setting the element to
null.


-- Adam Maass

 

[Frederik Coppens]

You could represent primitives by their wrapper classes, then the solution
with null would work. Or you could use a second boolean array with true for
positions that are filled and false for those that aren't. Admittedly, both
solutions would increase the time and space needed by the algorithm.

 

[karl wettin]

What about then the array contains primitive classes? I could either set
the value to the system default (i.e. short/int/long/float/byte...=0x0,
boolean=false) or throw a new Error("primitives can't be removed!");

Or should I spend days to change my logics so that the array wrapper
contains an Enumerator instead of Iterator?

throw OperationNotSupportedException.

In fact, the Iterator over Object[] should probably throw
OperationNotSupportedException on remove rather than setting the element to
null.

Is Enumeration totaly out of the loop?



karl

--
http://sf.net/projects/silvertejp/

[Human]<|--+--[Woman]<>-- +mother +child {0..*} --[Human]
\--[Man]<>-- +father +child {0..*} --[Human]

"arghhh .. its all in geek" - objectmonkey.com

 

[Adam Maass]

What about then the array contains primitive classes? I could either set
the value to the system default (i.e. short/int/long/float/byte...=0x0,
boolean=false) or throw a new Error("primitives can't be removed!");

Or should I spend days to change my logics so that the array wrapper
contains an Enumerator instead of Iterator?

throw OperationNotSupportedException.

In fact, the Iterator over Object[] should probably throw
OperationNotSupportedException on remove rather than setting the element to
null.

Is Enumeration totaly out of the loop?

Well, no, except that Enumeration is the older interface. Depends on your
audience.

-- Adam Maass