------- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 07:05 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The difference between Sun's and Classpath's implementation appears to be that > Classpath will check for Concurrent Modification on both hasNext() and next() > calls, while Sun's implementation only checks next() calls.
I would argue that Sun's implementation is correct in this case in the sense that hasNext() doesn't actually modify anything, only next() does. I agree that the user code is buggy, gets a potentially bogus answer with hasNext() and is simply asking for trouble, but the said trouble doesn't happen unless it actually calls next(). You cannot throw an exception on me if I merely intend to screw up - do that only if I actually screw up. My 2p. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27028
