> The Collections class is supposed to, among other things, return
> type safe collections from existing collections with static methods
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Maybe it's all about backward compatibility?
For the most part (where "most part" includes all of the collections
interface), all of the type constraints of generics are only checked at
compile time. The type-safe methods, e.g., checkedList, are guarantees
at /runtime/, something which generics can't do. Observe:
ArrayList<String> foo = new ArrayList();
List bar = foo;
bar.add(5);
String s = foo.get(0).substring(4);
This passes the compiler (although the compiler does give a warning), so
the code will be compiled to bytecode where it promptly emits a
ClassCastException. Passing the list through to checkedList still gives
an error, but it is emitted at the point of modification as opposed to
the point of access (which, in some cases, might not even give an error!).
In short, it is mostly a backwards-compatible feature, but it is
desirable in circumstances, so it is in no way an anachronism.
jupiter - 30 May 2007 01:37 GMT
>> The Collections class is supposed to, among other things,
>> return type safe collections from existing collections with
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> In short, it is mostly a backwards-compatible feature, but it is
> desirable in circumstances, so it is in no way an anachronism.
Great example, Joshua. Thanks.
I guess I was stuck thinking "compiler means everything now" but
when using references to do implicit casting, anything can happen
at runtime as you've clearly shown.
ITMozart - 02 Jul 2007 00:47 GMT
>> This passes the compiler (although the compiler does give a
>> warning), so the code will be compiled to bytecode where it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> when using references to do implicit casting, anything can happen
> at runtime as you've clearly shown.
This is true, but don't underestimate compiler warnings.
im