Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
185 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

Why won't this generic java code compile?

In this simplified example I have a generic class, and a method that returns a Map regardless of the type parameter. Why does the compiler wipe out the types on the map when I don't specify a type on the containing class?

import java.util.Map;

public class MyClass<T>
{
    public Map<String, String> getMap()
    {   
        return null;
    }

    public void test()
    {   
        MyClass<Object> success = new MyClass<Object>();
        String s = success.getMap().get("");

        MyClass unchecked = new MyClass();
        Map<String, String> map = unchecked.getMap();  // Unchecked warning, why?
        String s2 = map.get("");

        MyClass fail = new MyClass();
        String s3 = fail.getMap().get("");  // Compiler error, why?
    }
}

I get this compiler error.

MyClass.java:20: incompatible types
found   : java.lang.Object
required: java.lang.String
                String s3 = fail.getMap().get("");  // Compiler error
Question&Answers:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

Got it. This actually isn't a bug, strange as it might seem.

From section 4.8 (raw types) of the JLS:

The type of a constructor (§8.8), instance method (§8.8, §9.4), or non-static field (§8.3) M of a raw type C that is not inherited from its superclasses or superinterfaces is the erasure of its type in the generic declaration corresponding to C. The type of a static member of a raw type C is the same as its type in the generic declaration corresponding to C.

So even though the method's type signature doesn't use any type parameters of the class itself, type erasure kicks in and the signature becomes effectively

public Map getMap()

In other words, I think you can imagine a raw type as being the same API as the generic type but with all <X> bits removed from everywhere (in the API, not the implementation).

EDIT: This code:

MyClass unchecked = new MyClass();
Map<String, String> map = unchecked.getMap();  // Unchecked warning, why?
String s2 = map.get("");

compiles because there's an implicit but unchecked conversion from the raw Map type to Map<String, String>. You can get the same effect by making an explicit conversion (which does nothing at execution time) in the last case:

// Compiles, but with an unchecked warning
String x = ((Map<String, String>)fail.getMap()).get("");

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...