"Daniel Pitts"
> What about having an "ArrayList<LinkedList<Type>> hash = new
> ArrayList<LinkedList<Type>>()" instead of managing an array yourself?
yeah, but I wanted to handle things by myself, more efficently
> There is generally no way to handle generics and arrays together the
> way you're trying to.
thanks, so this is the conclusion.

Signature
ciao
Vittorix
Daniel Pitts - 17 Nov 2006 01:34 GMT
> "Daniel Pitts"
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> ciao
> Vittorix
A little advice, Don't handling things yourself "more efficently"
unless you find out (as in, use a profiler) that you need it. Its a
bigger headache than you need.
You're little class might be better replaced by HashMap or HashSet,
depending on what its doing. I would only try to find/create a
different collection type of class if there aren't any standard ones
that work "well enough".
Vittorix - 17 Nov 2006 16:16 GMT
"Daniel Pitts"
>> yeah, but I wanted to handle things by myself, more efficently
> A little advice, Don't handling things yourself "more efficently"
> unless you find out (as in, use a profiler) that you need it. Its a
> bigger headache than you need.
ok :)
> You're little class might be better replaced by HashMap or HashSet,
> depending on what its doing. I would only try to find/create a
> different collection type of class if there aren't any standard ones
> that work "well enough".
you are right, thanks

Signature
ciao
Vittorix