Re: inconsistent compiler behavior with generics example
Roger Levy wrote:
I have this new function that I wrote inside Eclipse (OS X, Java
1.5.0) and it both compiles and runs in Eclipse, and compiles using
javac within OS X. But it fails to compile through either (1) javac
on Linux (version 1.6.0), or (2) Apache ant on either OS X or Linux.
Here's the program and I'm appending the compile-time error message.
Thanks
Roger
***
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
public class Blah {
public static <E,L1 extends Collection<E>, L2 extends
Collection<L1>> L2 asListOfLists(E[][] array) {
List<List<E>> result = new ArrayList<List<E>>();
for(E[] a : array ) {
result.add(Arrays.asList(a));
}
return (L2) result;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(asListOfLists(new Integer[][] { { 1,2 },
{ 3,4 }} ));
}
}
Error:
$ javac -d . Blah.java
lBlah.java:19: incompatible types; inferred type argument(s)
java.util.Collection<java.lang.Integer>,java.lang.Object do not
conform to bounds of type variable(s) L1,L2
found : <L1,L2>L2
required: java.lang.Object
System.out.println(asListOfLists(new Integer[][] { { 1,2 },
{ 3,4 }} ));
^
Note: Blah.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations.
Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
1 error
- Autoboxing and arrays don't mix.
- Generics and arrays don't mix.
- You cannot declare an array of genericized type, really.
- You cannot cast to a genericized type, really.
Instead of relying on autoboxing, which notoriously doesn't treat Integer[]...
well at all, declare the constants directly as the object type and see what
happens.
Integer.valueOf(1), not 1.
Then abandon the idea of directly creating a genericized array, or of casting
to the generic type.
--
Lew