Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm reading part 17.2.1 of Java language specification:

I won't copy a text, it's too long, but I would like to know, why for third step of sequence they're saying that

If thread t was removed from m's wait set in step 2 due to an interrupt

Thread couldn't get to step 2 it wasn't removed from wait set, because it written for the step 1:

Thread t does not execute any further instructions until it has been removed from m's wait set

Thus thread can't be removed from wait set in step 2 whatever it's due to, because it was already removed.

Please help me understand this.

share|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

This is a bug caused by mistake in updating from prior version JLS, Third Edition 17.8.1 Wait, missing number of the list item.

Prior version JLS had the respective sequence listed from 1 to 4, not from 1 to 3:

  1. Thread t is added to the wait set...
  2. Thread t does not execute any further instructions until...
  3. Thread t performs n lock actions....
  4. If thread t was removed from m's wait set in step 2...

As you may see, step 2 in original version document refers to the part other than currently marked 2.

Compared to original version, JLS Java SE 7 Edition 17.2.1. Wait has lost list number (likely lost <li class="listitem"> in html) at the item Thread t does not execute...

As a result, whole sequence now lists from 1 to 3 and words "step 2" left unchanged from original version refer reader to wrong item that has been previously marked 3, not 2.

share|improve this answer

That is probably just a typo and is meant to be step 1.

Typos happen even in large projects and where a lot of people work on it.

share|improve this answer
I believe it's the only reason, because logically no way what is written can be true. – dhblah Nov 27 '12 at 20:51
ping this to the concurrency-interest group that Doug Lea runs, you'll get confirmation there. – Martijn Verburg Nov 27 '12 at 21:43
I asked about it on the concurrency interest mailing list and they replied that hard copy of JLS contains additional numbered point on "Thread t does not execute any further instructions". So step 2 that is referred to on step 3 (which is actually a step 4) is that step with a missing numbered point. So it's just a missed numbered point that caused a confusion. – dhblah Nov 28 '12 at 10:06

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.