-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implemented the 'SkipLast' operator #414
Conversation
RxJava-pull-requests #320 SUCCESS |
RxJava-pull-requests #322 SUCCESS |
RxJava-pull-requests #326 FAILURE |
another instance of #383 |
In addition, though |
I'm not aware of anything better than LinkedList for what you're doing here. The only consideration I have is whether we actually need all of the synchronization as this operator will not interact with multiple threads and should be able to assume thread safety due to the Rx contract. |
Merging as it is functional, but I'd be interested in a followup exploration of performance benefits of removing the synchronization and confirming whether my thoughts on the matter are correct. |
Implemented the 'SkipLast' operator
Implemented the 'SkipLast' operator
Hi,
I implemented the
skipLast
operator #78. I usedReentrantLock
andLinkedList
to implement it rather thanLinkedBlockingDeque
liketakeLast
#85 #140 for two reasons.skipLast
can accept 0.In summary,
LinkedBlockingDeque
will cause issues like #413.Please take a look. Thanks.