为什么Set不提供获取与另一个元素相等的元素的操作?
Set<Foo> set = ...;
...
Foo foo = new Foo(1, 2, 3);
Foo bar = set.get(foo); // get the Foo element from the Set that equals foo
我可以问Set是否包含一个等于bar的元素,那么为什么我不能得到那个元素呢?:(
为了澄清,equals方法被重写,但它只检查其中一个字段,而不是所有字段。两个相等的Foo对象可以有不同的值,这就是为什么我不能只用Foo。
因为Set的任何特定实现都可能是随机访问,也可能不是。
You can always get an iterator and step through the Set, using the iterators' next() method to return the result you want once you find the equal element. This works regardless of the implementation. If the implementation is NOT random access (picture a linked-list backed Set), a get(E element) method in the interface would be deceptive, since it would have to iterate the collection to find the element to return, and a get(E element) would seem to imply this would be necessary, that the Set could jump directly to the element to get.
当然,Contains()可能需要做同样的事情,也可能不需要,这取决于实现,但名称似乎不会导致同样的误解。
要准确回答“为什么Set不提供获取等于另一个元素的元素的操作?”这个问题,答案可能是:因为集合框架的设计者不是很有前瞻性。他们没有预料到您非常合理的用例,天真地试图“建模数学集合抽象”(从javadoc),只是忘记添加有用的get()方法。
现在回到隐含的问题“如何获得元素”:我认为最好的解决方案是使用Map<E,E>而不是Set<E>来将元素映射到它们自己。通过这种方式,您可以有效地从“set”中检索元素,因为Map的get()方法将使用有效的哈希表或树算法查找元素。如果愿意,可以编写自己的Set实现,提供额外的get()方法,封装Map。
以下答案在我看来是错误的:
“您不需要获取元素,因为您已经有了一个相等的对象”:断言是错误的,正如您在问题中已经表明的那样。两个相等的对象仍然可以具有与对象相等无关的不同状态。目标是访问Set中包含的元素的状态,而不是用作“查询”的对象的状态。
"You have no other option but to use the iterator": that is a linear search over a collection which is totally inefficient for large sets (ironically, internally the Set is organized as hash map or tree that could be queried efficiently). Don't do it! I have seen severe performance problems in real-life systems by using that approach. In my opinion what is terrible about the missing get() method is not so much that it is a bit cumbersome to work around it, but that most programmers will use the linear search approach without thinking of the implications.