Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: looping through a list, starting at 1
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:50:59 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <j17l8r$1p2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <list-20110802003845@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 01:52:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f8igmItKsWs6nM5YanFxAA"; logging-data="1826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3pPFpsy4pdasg8ts31MA6"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
In-Reply-To: <list-20110802003845@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t3YxW+1y9Y1Tcx4sXLmHMBa7+zI=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6728

On 8/1/2011 6:45 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>    Assuming a list has a sufficient number of entries at run
>    time, what should be prefered to assign a reference to each
>    entry to ģeĢ, starting at index 1:
>
> for( final E e : l.sublist( 1, l.size() ))...
>
>    or
>
> for( int i = 1; i<  l.size(); ++i ){ final E e = l.get( 0 ); ... }

     (ITYM l.get(i)?)

     How about

	Iterator<E> it = l.iterator();
	it.next();  // ignore element 0
	while (it.hasNext()) {
	    E e = it.next();
	    ...
	}

In short, there may well be half-a-dozen ways to do what you ask,
if not more.  None of them stands out as "preferred" to my eye;
you may as well do whatever seems natural.

     ... and "natural" is a little unnatural, it seems to me.  If
the various E are truly independent -- if l is merely a Collection
for the purposes of the loop -- one wonders where the interloper at
position 0 came from.  And if the position really matters -- maybe
you're looking at adjacent pairs or something -- then clearly i has
more significance than a purely synthetic iteration control would
(hence your second form would be preferred, because somewhere in the
body you'd be doing l.get(i-1).)  As a problem in the abstract I see
no clear reason to choose one form over its peers; with a concrete
context I might.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid