它不会抛出异常 ConcurrentModificationException

问题描述

我有以下代码，我希望它会抛出 ConcurrentModificationException，但它运行成功.为什么会这样?

I have the below code and I would expect it to throw a ConcurrentModificationException, but it runs successfully. Why does this happen?

public void fun(){
    List <Integer>lis = new ArrayList<Integer>();
    lis.add(1);
    lis.add(2);

    for(Integer st:lis){
        lis.remove(1);
        System.out.println(lis.size());
    }
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    test t = new test();
    t.fun();
}

推荐答案

List 上的remove(int) 方法删除指定位置的元素.在开始循环之前，您的列表如下所示:

The remove(int) method on List removes the element at the specified position. Before you start your loop, your list looks like this:

[1, 2]

然后你在列表上启动一个迭代器:

Then you start an iterator on the list:

[1, 2]
 ^

您的 for 循环然后删除 位置 1 的元素，即数字 2:

Your for loop then removes the element at position 1, which is the number 2:

[1]
 ^

迭代器在下一个隐含的 hasNext() 调用中返回 false，循环终止.

The iterator, on the next implied hasNext() call, returns false, and the loop terminates.

如果您向列表中添加更多元素，您将收到 ConcurrentModificationException.然后隐式 next() 会抛出.

You will get a ConcurrentModificationException if you add more elements to the list. Then the implicit next() will throw.

请注意，来自 JCF 的 ArrayList 的 Javadoc:

As a note, from the Javadoc for ArrayList from the JCF:

请注意，无法保证迭代器的快速失败行为，因为一般来说，在存在不同步的并发修改的情况下无法做出任何硬保证.快速失败的迭代器会尽最大努力抛出 ConcurrentModificationException.因此，编写一个依赖此异常来确保其正确性的程序是错误的:迭代器的快速失败行为应该只用于检测错误.

Note that the fail-fast behavior of an iterator cannot be guaranteed as it is, generally speaking, impossible to make any hard guarantees in the presence of unsynchronized concurrent modification. Fail-fast iterators throw ConcurrentModificationException on a best-effort basis. Therefore, it would be wrong to write a program that depended on this exception for its correctness: the fail-fast behavior of iterators should be used only to detect bugs.

这可能实际上是Oracle ArrayList 迭代器实现中的一个错误；hasNext() 不检查修改:

This is probably actually a bug in the Oracle ArrayList iterator implementation; hasNext() does not check for modification:

public boolean hasNext() {
    return cursor != size;
}

这篇关于它不会抛出异常 ConcurrentModificationException的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持跟版网！