There’s a hole in my abstraction, dear Liza, dear Liza

I had an interesting day at work today. I thought my code had broken… but it turns out it was just a strange corner case which made it work very slowly. Usually when something interesting happens in my code it’s quite hard to blog about it, because of all the confidentiality issues involved. In this case, it’s extremely easy to reproduce the oddity in an entirely vanilla manner. All we need is the Java collections API.

I have a set – a HashSet, in fact. I want to remove some items from it… and many of the items may well not exist. In fact, in our test case, none of the items in the "removals" collection will be in the original set. This sounds – and indeed is – extremely easy to code. After all, we’ve got Set<T>.removeAll to help us, right?

Let’s make this concrete, and look at a little test. We specify the size of the "source" set and the size of the "removals" collection on the command line, and build both of them. The source set contains only non-negative integers; the removals set contains only negative integers. We measure how long it takes to remove all the elements using System.currentTimeMillis(), which isn’t the world most accurate stopwatch but is more than adequate in this case, as you’ll see. Here’s the code:

import java.util.*;

public class Test
    public static void main(String[] args)
        int sourceSize = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
        int removalsSize = Integer.parseInt(args[1]);
        Set<Integer> source = new HashSet<Integer>();
        Collection<Integer> removals = new ArrayList<Integer>();
        for (int i = 0; i < sourceSize; i++)
        for (int i = 1; i <= removalsSize; i++)
        long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
        long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
        System.out.println("Time taken: " + (end – start) + "ms");

Let’s start off by giving it an easy job: a source set of 100 items, and 100 to remove:

c:UsersJonTest>java Test 100 100
Time taken: 1ms

Okay, so we hadn’t expected it to be slow… clearly we can ramp things up a bit. How about a source of one million items1 and 300,000 items to remove?

c:UsersJonTest>java Test 1000000 300000
Time taken: 38ms

Hmm. That still seems pretty speedy. Now I feel I’ve been a little bit cruel, asking it to do all that removing. Let’s make it a bit easier – 300,000 source items and 300,000 removals:

c:UsersJonTest>java Test 300000 300000
Time taken: 178131ms

Excuse me? Nearly three minutes? Yikes! Surely it ought to be easier to remove items from a smaller collection than the one we managed in 38ms? Well, it does all make sense, eventually. HashSet<T> extends AbstractSet<T>, which includes this snippet in its documentation for the removeAll method:

This implementation determines which is the smaller of this set and the specified collection, by invoking the size method on each. If this set has fewer elements, then the implementation iterates over this set, checking each element returned by the iterator in turn to see if it is contained in the specified collection. If it is so contained, it is removed from this set with the iterator’s remove method. If the specified collection has fewer elements, then the implementation iterates over the specified collection, removing from this set each element returned by the iterator, using this set’s remove method.

Now that sounds reasonable on the surface of it – iterate through the smaller collection, check for the presence in the bigger collection. However, this is where the abstraction is leaky. Just because we can ask for the presence of an item in a large collection doesn’t mean it’s going to be fast. In our case, the collections are the same size – but checking for the presence of an item in the HashSet is O(1) whereas checking in the ArrayList is O(N)… whereas the cost of iterating is going to be the same for each collection. Basically by choosing to iterate over the HashSet and check for presence in the ArrayList, we’ve got an O(M * N) solution overall instead of an O(N) solution. Ouch. The removeAll method is making an "optimization" based on assumptions which just aren’t valid in this case.

Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry

There are two simple ways of fixing the problem. The first is to simply change the type of the collection we’re removing from. Simply changing ArrayList<Integer> to HashSet<Integer> gets us back down to the 34ms range. We don’t even need to change the declared type of removals.

The second approach is to change the API we use: if we know we want to iterate over removals and perform the lookup in source, that’s easy to do:

for (Integer value : removals)

In fact, on my machine that performs slightly better than removeAll – it doesn’t need to check the return value of remove on each iteration, which removeAll does in order to return whether or not any items were removed. The above runs in about 28ms. (I’ve tested it with rather larger datasets, and it really is faster than the dual-hash-set approach.)

However, both of these approaches require comments in the source code to explain why we’re not using the most obvious code (a list and removeAll). I can’t complain about the documentation here – it says exactly what it will do. It’s just not obvious that you need to worry about it, until you run into such a problem.

So what should the implementation do? Arguably, it really needs to know what’s cheap in each of the collections it’s dealing with. The idea of probing for performance characteristics before you decide on a strategy is completely anathema to clean abstraction we like to consider with frameworks like Java collections… but maybe in this case it would be a good idea.

1 Please perform Dr Evil impression while reading this. I’m watching you through your webcam, and I’ll be disappointed if I don’t see you put your little finger to your mouth.

Iterate, damn you!

Do you know the hardest thing about presenting code with surprising results? It’s hard to do so without effectively inviting readers to look for the trick. Not that that’s always enough – I failed the last of Neal and Eric’s C# puzzlers at NDC, for example. (If you haven’t already watched the video, please do so now. It’s far more entertaining than this blog post.) Anyway, this one may be obvious to some of you, but there are some interesting aspects even when you’ve got the twist, as it were.

What does the following code print?

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

public class WeirdIterators
    static void ShowNext(IEnumerator<int> iterator)
        if (iterator.MoveNext())
    static void Main()
        List<int> values = new List<int> { 1, 2 };
        using (var iterator = values.GetEnumerator())

If you guessed "1, 2, Done" despite the title of the post and the hints that it was surprising, then you’re at least brave and firm in your beliefs. I suspect most readers will correctly guess that it prints "1, 1, 1" – but I also suspect some of you won’t have worked out why.

Let’s look at the signature of List<T>.GetEnumerator(). We’d expect it to be

public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()

right? That’s what IEnumerable<T> says it’ll look like. Well, no. List<T> uses explicit interface implementation for IEnumerable<T>. The signature actually looks like this:

public List<T>.Enumerator GetEnumerator()

Hmm… that’s an unfamiliar type. Let’s have another look in MSDN

public struct Enumerator : IEnumerator<T>, 
    IDisposable, IEnumerator

(It’s nested in List<T> of course.) Now that’s odd… it’s a struct. You don’t see many custom structs around, beyond the familiar ones in the System namespace. And hang on, don’t iterators fundamentally have to be mutable.

Ah. "Mutable value type" – a phrase to strike terror into the hearts of right-headed .NET developers everywhere.

So what’s going on? If we’re losing all the changes to the value, why is it printing "1, 1, 1" instead of throwing an exception due to printing out Current without first moving?

Well, we’re fetching the iterator into a variable of type List<int>.Enumerator, and then calling ShowNext() three times. On each call, the value is boxed (creating a copy), and the reference to the box is passed to ShowNext().

Within ShowNext(), the value within the box changes when we call MoveNext() – which is how it’s able to get the real first element with Current. So that mutation isn’t lost… until we return from the method. The box is now eligible for garbage collection, and no change has been made to the iterator variable’s value. On the next call to ShowNext(), a new box is created and we see the first item again…

How can we fix it?

There are various things we can do to fix the code – or at least, to make it display "1, 2, Done". We can then find other ways of breaking it again :)

Change the type of the values variable

How does the compiler work out the type of the iterator variable? Why, it looks at the return type of values.GetEnumerator(). And how does it find that? It looks at the type of the values variable, and then finds the GetEnumerator() method. In this case it finds List<int>.GetEnumerator(), so it makes the iterator variable type List<int>.Enumerator.

If suppose just change values to be of type IList<int> (or IEnumerable<int>, or ICollection<int>):

IList<int> values = new List<int> { 1, 2 };

The compiler uses the interface implementation of GetEnumerator() on List<T>. Now that could return a different type entirely – but it actually returns a boxed List<T>.Enumerator. We can see that by just printing out iterator.GetType().

So if it’s just returning the same value as before, why does it work?

Well, this time we’re boxing once – the iterator gets boxed on its way out of the GetEnumerator() method, and the same box is used for all three calls to ShowNext(). No extra copies are created, and the changes within the box don’t get lost.

Change the type of the iterator variable

This is exactly the same as the previous fix – except we don’t need to change the type of values. We can just explicitly state the type of iterator:

using (IEnumerator<int> iterator = values.GetEnumerator())

The reason this works is the same as before – we box once, and the changes within the box don’t get lost.

Pass the iterator variable by reference

The initial problem was due to the mutations involved in ShowNext() getting lost due to repeated boxing. We’ve seen how to solve it by reducing the number of boxing operations down to one, but can we remove them entirely?

Well yes, we can. If we want changes to the value of the parameter in ShowNext() to be propagated back to the caller, we just need to pass the variable by reference. When passing by reference the parameter and argument types have to match exactly of course, so we can’t leave the iterator variable being type List<T>.Enumerator without changing the parameter type. Now we could explicitly change the type of the parameter to List<T>.Enumerator – but that would tie our implementation down rather a lot, wouldn’t it? Let’s use generics instead:

static void ShowNext<T>(ref T iterator)
    where T : IEnumerator<int>

Now we can pass iterator by reference and the compiler will infer the type. The interface members (MoveNext() and Current) will be called using constrained calls, so there’s no boxing involved…

… except that when you try to just change the method calls to use ref, it doesn’t work – because apparently you can’t pass a "using variable" by reference. I’d never come across that rule before. Interesting. Fortunately, we can (roughly) expand out the using statement ourselves, like this:

var iterator = values.GetEnumerator();
    ShowNext(ref iterator);
    ShowNext(ref iterator);
    ShowNext(ref iterator);

Again, this fixes the problem – and this time there’s no boxing involved.

Let’s quickly look at one more example of it not working, before I finish…

Dynamic typing to the anti-rescue

What happens if we change the type of iterator to dynamic (and set everything else back the way it was)? I’ll readily admit, I really didn’t know what was going to happen here. There are two competing forces:

  • The dynamic type is often really just object behind the scenes… so it will be boxed once, right? That means the changes within the box won’t get lost. (This would give "1, 2, Done")
  • The dynamic type is in many ways meant to act as if you’d declared a variable of the type which it actually turns out to be at execution time – so in this case it should work as if the variable was of type List<int>.Enumerator, just like our original code. (This would give "1, 1, 1")

What actually happens? I believe it actually boxes the value returned from GetEnumerator() – and then the C# binder DLR makes sure that the value type behaviour is preserved by copying the box before passing it to ShowNext(). In other words, both bits of intuition are right, but the second effectively overrules the first. Wow. (See the comment below from Chris Burrows for more information about this. I’m sure he’s right that it’s the only design that makes sense. This is a pretty pathological example in various ways.)


Just say "no" to mutable value types. They do weird things.

(Fortunately the vast majority of the time this particular one won’t be a problem – it’s rare to use iterators explicitly in the first place, and when you do you very rarely pass them to another method.)

Degrees of reality in sample code

Yesterday I tweeted a link to an article about overloading that I’d just finished. In that article, all my examples look a bit like this:

using System;

class Test
    static void Foo(int x, int y = 5)
        Console.WriteLine("Foo(int x, int y = 5)");
    static void Foo(double x)
        Console.WriteLine("Foo(double x)");

    static void Main()

Each example is followed by an explanation of the output.

Fairly soon afterwards, I received an email from a reader who disagreed with my choices for sample code. ere are a few extracts from the email exchange. Please read them carefully – they really form the context of the rest of this post.

This is really not proper. When a method can do more than one thing, you might offer what are called ‘convenience overloads’, which make it easier for the consuming developer. When you start swaying away so much that you have wildly different arguments, then it’s probably time to refactor and consider creating a second method. With your example with "Foo", it’s hard to tell which is the case.

My point is, the ‘convenience overloads’ should all directly or indirectly call the one REAL method. I’m not a fan of "test", "foo", and "bar", because they rarely make the point clearer, and often make it more confusing. So let me use something more realistic. So let me use something more realistic. This nonsensical example, but hopefully is clear:


The point here was to make you aware of the oversight. I do what I can to try to stop bad ideas from propagating, particularly now that you're writing books. When developers read your book and consider it an "authority" on the topic, they take your example as if it's a model for what they should do. I just hope your more mindful of that in your code samples in the future.


Specific to this overload issue, this has come up many times for me. Developers will write 3 overloads that do wildly different things or worse, will have 98% of the same code repeated. We try to catch this in a code review, but sometimes we will get pushback because they read it in a book (hence, my comments).


I assume your audience is regular developer, right? In other words, the .NET Framework developers at Microsoft perhaps aren't the ones reading your books, but it's thousands of App Developer I and App Developer II that do business development? I just mean that there are far, far more "regular developers" than seasoned, expert developers who will be able to discern the difference and know what is proper. You are DEFINING what is proper in your book, you become an authority on the matter!

Anyhow, all my point was it to realize how far your influence goes once you become an author. Even the simplest, throwaway example can be seen as a best-practice beacon.

Now, this gave me pause for thought. Indeed, I went back and edited the overloading article - not to change the examples, but to make the article's scope clearer. It's describing the mechanics of overloading, rather than suggesting when it is and isn't appropriate to use overloading at all.

I don't think I'm actually wrong here, but I wanted to explore it a little more in this post, and get feedback. First I'd like to suggest a few categorizations - these aren't the only possible ones, of course, but I think they divide the spectrum reasonably. Here I'll give example examples in another area: overriding and polymorphism. I'll just describe the options first, and then we can talk about the pros and cons afterwards.

Totally abstract - no code being presented at all

Sometimes we talk about code without actually giving any examples at all. In order to override a member, it has to be declared as `virtual` in a base class, and then the overriding member uses the `override `modifier. When the virtual member is called, it is dispatched to the most specific implementation which overrides it, even if the caller is unaware of the existence of the implementation class.

Working but pointless code

This is the level my overloading article worked at. Here, you write code whose sole purpose is to demonstrate the mechanics of the feature you're describing. So in this case we might have:

using System;

public class C1
    public virtual void M()

public class C2 : C1
    public override void M()

public class C3
    static void Main()
        C1 c = new C2();

Now this is a reasonably extreme example; as a matter of personal preference I tend to use class names like "Test" or "Program" as the entry point, perhaps "BaseClass" and "DerivedClass" where "C1" and "C2" are used here, and "Foo" instead of "M" for the method name. Obviously "Foo" has no more real meaning than "M" as a name - I just get uncomfortable for some reason around single character identifiers other than for local variables. Arguably "M" is better as it stands for "method" and I could use "P" for a property etc. Whatever we choose, we're talking about metasyntactic variables really.

Complete programs indicative of design in a non-business context

This is the level at which I would probably choose to demonstrate overriding. It's certainly the one I've used for talking about generic variance. Here, the goal is to give the audience a flavour of the purpose of the feature as well as demonstrating the mechanics, but to stay in the simplistic realm of non-business examples. To adapt one of my normal examples - where I'd actually use an interface instead of an abstract class - we might end up with an example like this:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

public abstract class Shape
    public abstract double Area { get; }

public class Square : Shape
    private readonly double side;
    public Square(double side)
        this.side = side;
    public override double Area { get { return side * side; } }

public class Circle : Shape
    public readonly double radius;
    public Circle(double radius)
        this.radius = radius;
    public override double Area { get { return Math.PI * radius * radius; } }

public class ShapeDemo
    static void Main()
        List<Shape> shapes = new List<Shape>
            new Square(10),
            new Circle(5)
        foreach (Shape shape in shapes)

Now these are pretty tame shapes - they don't even have a location. If I were really going to demonstrate an abstract class I might try to work out something I could do in the base class to make it sensibly a non-interface... but at least we're demonstrating the property being overridden.

Business-like partial example

Here we'll use classes which sound like they could be in a real business application... but we won't fill in all the useful logic, or worry about any properties that aren't needed for the demonstation.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

public abstract class Employee
    private readonly DateTime joinDate;
    private readonly decimal salary;
    // Most employees don't get bonuses any more
    public virtual int BonusPercentage { get { return 0; } }
    public decimal Salary { get { return salary; } }
    public DateTime JoinDate { get { return joinDate; } }
    public int YearsOfService
        // TODO: Real calculation
        get { return DateTime.Now.Year - joinDate.Year; }
    public Employee(decimal salary, DateTime joinDate)
        this.salary = salary;
        this.joinDate = joinDate;

public abstract class Manager : Employee
    // Managers always get a 15% bonus
    public override int BonusPercentage { get { return 15; } }

public abstract class PreIpoContract : Employee
    // The old style contracts were really generous
    public override int BonusPercentage
        get { return YearsOfService * 2; }

Now this particular code sample won't even compile: we haven't provided the necessary constructors in the derived classes. Note how the employees don't have names, and there are no relationships between employees and their managers, either.

Obviously we could have filled in all the rest of the code, ending up with a complete solution to an imaginary business need. Other examples at this level may well include customers and orders. One interesting thing to note here: admittedly I've only been working in the industry for 16 years, and only 12 years full time, but I don't think I've ever written a Customer or Order class as part of my job.

Full application example

No, I'm not going to provide an example of this. Usually this is the sort of thing which a book might work up to over the course of the complete text, and you'll end up with a wiki, or an e-commerce site, or an indexed library of books with complete web site around it. If you think I'm going to spend days or even weeks coding something like that just for this blog post, you'll be disappointed :)

Anyway, the idea of this is that it does something genuinely useful, and you can easily lift whole sections of it into other projects - or at least the design of it.

Which approach is best?

I'm sure you know what's coming here: it depends. In particular, I believe it depends on:

Your readership

Are they likely to copy and paste your example into production code without further thought? Arguably in that case the first option might be the best: they may not understand it, but at least it means your code won't be injuring a project.

Simply put, didactic code is not production code. The parables in the Bible aren't meant to be gripping stories with compelling characterization: they're meant to make a point. Scales aren't meant to sound like wonderful music: they're meant to help you improve your abilities to make a nice sound when you're playing real music.

The point you're trying to put across

If I'm trying to explain the mechanics of a feature, I find the second option to be useful. The reader doesn't need to try to take in the context of what the code is trying to accomplish, because it's explicitly not trying to do anything of any use. It's just demonstrating how the language or platform behaves in a particular scenario.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to explain a design principle, then the third or fourth options are useful. The third option can also be useful for the mechanics of a feature which is particularly abstract - like generic variance, as I mentioned earlier. That goes somewhere between "complete guide to where this feature should be used" and "no guidance whatsoever" - a sort of "here's a hint at the kind of situation where it could be useful."

If you're trying to explore a technology for fun, I find the third option works very well for that situation too. For example, while looking at Reactive Extensions, I've written programs to:

  • Group lines in a file by length
  • Give the results of a UK general election
  • Simulate the 1998 Brazil vs Norway world cup football match
  • Implement drag and drop using event filtering

None of these is likely to be directly useful in a real business app - but they were more appealing than solely demonstrating a sequence of numbers being generated (although with an appropriate marble diagram generator, that can be quite fun too).

The technology you're demonstrating

This is clearly related to the previous point, but I think it bears a certain amount of separation. I believe that language topics are fairly easily demonstrated with the second and third options. Library topics often deserve a slightly higher level of abstraction - and if you're going to try to demonstrate that a whole platform is worth investing time and energy in, it's useful to have something pretty real-world to show off.

Your time and skills

You know what? I suck at the fourth and fifth options here. I can't remember writing any complete, independent systems as a software engineer, and none of them have been in line-of-business applications anyway. The closest I've come is writing standalone tools which certainly have been useful, but often take shortcuts in terms of design which I wouldn't countenance in other applications. (And yes, I'm sure there's some discussion to be had around that as well, but it's not the point of this article.)

You may think my employee example above was lousy - and I'd agree with you. It's not really a great fit for inheritance, in my view - and the bonus calculation is certainly a dubious way of forcing in some polymorphism. But it was the best I could come up with in the time available to me. This wasn't some attempt to make it appear less worthy than the other options; I really am that bad at coming up with business-like examples. Other authors (by which I mean anyone writing at all, not just book authors) may well have found much better examples, either by spending more time on them, being more experienced with line-of-business apps, or having a better imagination. Or all three.

I'm not too proud to admit the things I suck at :) If I spent many extra hours coming up with examples for everything I write about, I would get a lot less written. I'm doing this in notional "spare time" after all. So even if you would prefer the fourth option over the third, would you rather have that but see less of my (ahem) "wisdom"? Personally I think everyone's better off with me braindumping using examples in forms which I'm better at.

How to read examples

Most of this post has been from the point of view of an author. Briefly, I'd like to suggest what this might mean for readers. The onus is on the author to make this clear, of course, but I think it's worth trying to be actively better readers ourselves.

  • Understand what the author is trying to achieve. Don't assume that every example will fit nicely in your application. Example code often doesn't come with any argument validation or error handling - and very rarely does it have an appropriate set of unit tests. If you're reading about how something works, don't assume that the examples are in any way realistic. They may well be simplified to demonstrate the behaviour as clearly as possible without the extra "fluff" of useful functionality.
  • Think about what may be missing, particularly if the context is an evangelical one. If someone is trying to sell you on a particular technology, then of course they'll try to show it in its best possible light. Where are the pitfalls? Where does it not stack up?
  • Don't assume authority means anything. I was quite happy to take Jeffrey Richter to task on boxing for example. Jeffrey Richter is a fabulous author and clearly a smart cookie, but that doesn't mean he's right about everything... and I really, really don't like the idea of anyone appealing to my supposed abilities to justify some bad decision. Judge any argument on its merits... find out what people think and why they think it, but then see how well their reasoning actually hangs together.


This was always going to be a somewhat biased look at this topic, because I hold a certain viewpoint which is clearly contrary to the one held by the chap who emailed me. That's why I included a reasonable chunk of his emails - to give at least some representation to the alternatives. This post has effectively been a longwinded justification of the form my examples have taken... but does it ring true?

I can't guarantee to change my writing style drastically on this front - at least not quickly - but I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this. I'm reluctant to exaggerate, but I think it may be even more important than working out whether "Jedi" was meant to be plural or singular - and I certainly received a lot of feedback on that topic.

How many Jedi?

(There’s no technical content in this post… but you may get a bit of a giggle from it. When I get the second edition web site notes together I’ll include this as well… but I thought it was fun enough to deserve a blog post too.)

The second edition of C# in Depth is nearing the end of its technical review cycle, as performed by the great Eric Lippert. Yesterday I received the comments for chapter 13, which includes this section heading:

The revenge of optional parameters and named arguments

Now, my copy editor (Ben) wasn’t too keen on this. He suggested an alternative form:

I think "have their revenge" has more of a ring to it than "the revenge of"

Personally I’m quite fond of the original, but Eric suggested another alternative, with customary flair:

I’m not buying it Ben. Your way vs Jon’s way:
"The Clones Attack"       / "Attack of the Clones"
"The Sith Have Revenge"   / "The Revenge of the Sith"
"The Empire Strikes Back" / "The Counter-attack of the Empire"
"The Jedi Return"         / "The Return of the Jedi"

I would argue – I have before and I will again – that the proper title for episode two is not the passive, wimpy "Attack of the Clones" but rather the aggressive, dynamic, active "The Clones Attack", preferably with an exclamation point, "The Clones Attack!"

"The Sith Have Revenge" has that awkward verb form. "The Counter-attack of the Empire" is too wordy. And "The Jedi Return" is just… wrong.  So I would score these as the winners being Ben / Jon / Ben / Jon.

I say "the revenge of" is superior to "have their revenge", but that the best would be "Optional and named parameters strike back".

Also, NOOOOOO! You’re not my father!

This intrigued me mightily, so I dashed off an email to Eric:

Hi Eric,

I’m just going through your notes for chapter 13, and they’ve brought up an issue which I think would bother me if I didn’t consult you about it.

You suggested that the alternative to "Return of the Jedi" (1) would be "The Jedi Return." That implies multiple Jedi returning – does this include Anakin returning from the Dark Side? Leia’s nascent ability being revealed? I had always imagine it to only refer to Luke’s return, suggesting "The Jedi Returns" as the parallel title. This could change everything.



(1) There’s no leading "The" in the English title, as far as I can tell – although in French it’s "Le retour du Jedi." Does this alter your argument at all?

Eric’s reply was as prompt as ever:

First off, you’re right, there’s no leading “The”. I had not realized that.

I had always assumed that the “Jedi” of the title “Return of the Jedi” referred to the beginning of the restoration of the Jedi as an institution. With the downfall of the Emperor and Lord Vader, the Jedi are back. Even though technically there’s only one of them alive in the club right now, there will be more.

However, I must admit that in light of episodes one through three, it now seems plausible that in fact the Jedi referred to in the title is neither the Jedi as a class nor Luke as an individual, but rather the redemption of Anakin.

Beyond the dialogue…

So, that’s the end of that, right? We can’t really tell what Lucas was thinking… except that when I relayed all of this at the office over breakfast, someone suggested that we have a look at some other translations – and that we pay more attention to the French than just the inclusion of "Le" to start with.

The fact that the French version uses "du" suggests it’s the return of a singular Jedi rather than many individual Jedi knights… but apparently the singular form can also be used for a collective institution, in line with Eric’s "Jedi as a class" theory.

The German version is still ambiguous, as far as I can tell interesting: "Die Rückkehr der Jedi-Ritter" – a colleague suggested that this implies knights plural, but "the return of the knight" and "the return of the knights" translate the same way in Google Translate. The fact that "ritter" is both plural and singular (like sheep in English) looks like it foils us. EDIT: As noted in comments, the genetive form would be "des" for a singular knight. So it really is "knights". I was misled by automated translation – I should have trusted my colleague :) But does this mean "the return of several individual Jedi knights" or "the return of an institution of Jedi knights"? Without knowing the subtleties of the German language, I certainly can’t tell for sure.

There’s a whole host of titles of course – if any reader gifted in languages wishes to analyse some more of them, I’d be very grateful. One thing I will point out is the alternative US working title: "Revenge of the Jedi." Who really had their revenge in episode VI? Arguably Luke avenged Han by killing Jabba… and perhaps Anakin himself took revenge on the Emperor? Given that Obi Wan effectively started Luke on the crusade against Vader, perhaps it’s his revenge from beyond the grave?

These are serious matters which I lament I am unable to explore adequately in this post – but comments are more welcome than ever.


So what happened to the heading in the end? Well, for the moment I’ve left it as it is. It may yet change before printing though – we’ll see. Possibly I should take this opportunity to make Eric’s dream change apply in a different context… how about "Attack of the optional parameters and named arguments!" Perhaps not.

Anyway, I’m sure you will all be glad to see that such weighty technical matters are being given the thorough attention they deserve. Yes, the book really will come out sometime reasonably soon.