Re: Vector (was Re: Change character in string)
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
List<Test> lt1 = new Vector();
List<Test> lt3 = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList());
I think Sun missed a trick here: they could have made the post-generics
declaration of Vector look like:
public class Vector implements List<Object>
That would ease the pain of legacy code which uses raw Vectors, as it
would need the addition of lots of type bindings to compile without
warnings,
In the second line of this paragraph, didn't you mean "wouldn't need" ?
Yes. Sorry.
If talk was about pure legacy code, then -source 1.4 should get rid of
all those unchecked-warnings, and such code also doesn't contain
variables with types like List<Foo>. But even if *such* code is
compiled with -source 1.5 and spews out gobs of [unchecked] warnings,
it's still no way less safe as the same code was back when compiled with
a 1.4 javac.
True, of course.
If, however, you're talking about new sources having to use Vector for
old interfaces, then not changing Vector at all would surely have been
the easiest signal by Sun to declare it unmisunderstandably as obsolete.
Yet, they didn't.
By that point, Vector implemented List, so when List became generic, they
had a choice bewteen adding a binding or a type parameter to Vector, or
having it generating warnings on compilation. I don't think i would have
liked the latter.
tom
--
There is no violence or enmity in the LEGO universe until you, the
builder, decide what to build with the pieces. -- Pyrogenic