Nice TWiki > Dev > CurrentDiscussions > StandardLibrary (r1.5) TWiki webs:
Dev | Doc | Main | TWiki | Sandbox
Dev . { Changes | Index | Search | Go }

Documentation for the standard library

We need a documentation for the standard library. The best way would be to write a tool nicedoc, similar to javadoc. There are already documentation comments in the library. Writing nicedoc is a project in search of a volunteer to start it!

Unsupported operations in Java collections

Another thing I've been struggling with, is that the current collection hierarchy is somewhat imprecise - Collection specifies a number of operations which commonly appear together, but which might not always be appropriate (e.g., it's debatable whether LazyVector? should have a size method), and the same is true of sequence. I'm toying with a much more granular hierarchy at the moment, which I'll detail later. It also has two hierarchies, one for collections which allow in-place modification, and one for collections which do 'functional update', that is, return copies of themselves with the changed values. More later. -- BrynKeller - 05 Aug 2002

I also have concerns with this UnsupportedOperationException. It seems that the interface hierarchy was not well designed. Anybody interested to propose a fixed hierarchy?

-- DanielBonniot - 09 Sep 2002

Here a page discussing this problem:

see also FlagInterfaces for an experimental approach to solve this problem -- ArjanB

Additional collection methods

Are the methods in the StdLib? a complete set of additions to the collections api or do we need more?

A few names of the methods could be could changed to fit better the java parts of the api. has->contains, keep->retain and "find" shouldn't throw an exception. -- ArjanB

Support for 'break'ing in foreach

I've noticed that there's a need for another basic method on Collection, which is a method that's like foreach, but provides the client code with some way to stop the iteration. I'll call this method forbreak, because it's foreach with a break. It looks something like this:

<Any T> void forbreak(Collection<T> coll, (()->void)->T->void func);

forbreak(s@Sequence, func) {
  boolean breakFlag = false;
  T->void each = func(()->void esc =>{breakFlag = true;});
  for(int i=0;!breakFlag; i++) {
So the function passed to forbreak takes an 'escape continuation', so-to-speak, and returns a function to iterate with. Then the iterator function can use the escape continuation to break off the iteration when desired. Foreach can be implemented trivially on top of forbreak:
foreach(c@Collection, func) = c.forbreak(()->void esc=>func);
and it seems like a more generally useful building block for functions on collections which may or may not be sequences, or support size(), or what have you. For instance, find() is currently defined on Sequence, but with forbreak installed, it could be promoted up to Collection. If we added a method mkEmpty, which would produce an empty collection (i.e., much like a no-args constructor) to Container, then we could define foldLeft, map, filter, etc. top of forbreak. So for collections to get all that great functionality, they only have to define mkEmpty and forbreak. Actually, mkEmpty plus either forbreak or fold would do. Maybe we should make fold the base operation, and forbreak can easily be built on that as well.

-- BrynKeller - 05 Aug 2002

And alternate design uses exceptions. You make the iterating function catch an exception called Break. In the anonymous function, it is possible to break by just throwing that exception. One advantage is that we can add that functionality to foreach itself, and clients don't need to do anything if they don't need breaking.

foreach(c@java.util.Collection, f) 
  try {
    for (let i = c.iterator(); i.hasNext();)
  catch(Break ex) {}


List<String> l = [ "A", "B", "C" ];
l.foreach(String s => { println(s); if (s.equals("B")) throw new Break(); });

Does someone know (or can make experiments to find out) if the try block would cause a performance penalty, in case the client does not need to break?

Would foreach with Break exception support a good solution? Is forbreak still needed, because it is more general?

-- DanielBonniot - 06 Jun 2003

Topic StandardLibrary . { Edit | Attach | Ref-By | Printable | Diffs | r1.17 | > | r1.16 | > | r1.15 | More }
Revision r1.5 - 06 Jun 2003 - 19:17 GMT - DanielBonniot
Parents: WebHome > CurrentDiscussions
Copyright © 1999-2003 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback.

Dev.StandardLibrary moved from Dev.StdLib on 06 Jun 2003 - 19:17 by DanielBonniot - put it back