问题描述
问题的症结在于,为什么这会导致编译时错误?
The crux of the question is, why does this cause a compile-time error?
List<Collection> raws = new ArrayList<Collection>();
List<Collection<?>> c = raws; // error
背景
我理解为什么泛型通常不会协变.如果我们可以将List<Integer>
分配给List<Number>
,我们将自己暴露于ClassCastExceptions:
Background
I understand why generics aren't covariant in general. If we could assign List<Integer>
to List<Number>
, we'd expose ourselves to ClassCastExceptions:
List<Integer> ints = new ArrayList<Integer>();
List<Number> nums = ints; // compile-time error
nums.add(Double.valueOf(1.2));
Integer i = ints.get(0); // ClassCastException
我们在第2行收到一个编译时错误,以使我们从第4行的运行时错误中解脱出来.
We get a compile-time error at line 2 to save us from a run-time error at line 4. That makes sense.
但是这怎么办?
List<Collection> rawLists = new ArrayList<Collection>();
List<Collection<?>> wildLists = rawLists; // compile-time error
// scenario 1: add to raw and get from wild
rawLists.add(new ArrayList<Integer>());
Collection<?> c1 = wildLists.get(0);
Object o1 = c1.iterator().next();
// scenario 2: add to wild and get from raw
wildLists.add(new ArrayList<String>());
Collection c2 = rawLists.get(0);
Object o2 = c2.iterator().next();
在这两种情况下,最终我只获得了Object
个元素而没有进行强制转换,因此无法获得神秘的" ClassCastException.
In both scenarios, ultimately I get only get Object
elements without casting, so I can't get a "mysterious" ClassCastException.
JLS中与此对应的部分是§4.10.2,因此我理解了为什么编译器会给我错误;我不明白的是为什么这样写规范,以及(为了避免基于投机/基于观点的答案),它是否真的为我提供了编译时的安全性.
The section in the JLS that corresponds to this is §4.10.2, so I understand why the compiler is giving me the error; what I don't get is why the spec was written this way, and (to ward off speculative/opinion-based answers), whether it actually provides me any compile-time safety.
如果您想知道,这里是用例(精简版):
In case you're wondering, here's (a stripped-down version of) the use case:
public Collection<T> readJsons(List<String> jsons, Class<T> clazz) {
List<T> list = new ArrayList<T>();
for (String json : jsons) {
T elem = jsonMapper.readAs(json, clazz);
list.add(elem);
}
return list;
}
// call site
List<GenericFoo<?>> foos = readJsons(GenericFoo.class); // error
错误是因为GenericFoo.class
具有类型Class<GenericFoo>
,而不是Class<GenericFoo<?>>
().我不确定为什么会这样,尽管我怀疑这是一个相关原因.但是无论如何,如果Class<GenericFoo>
可以隐式或显式地强制转换为Class<GenericFoo<?>>
,那都不是问题.
The error is because GenericFoo.class
has type Class<GenericFoo>
, not Class<GenericFoo<?>>
(§15.8.2). I'm not sure why that is, though I suspect it's a related reason; but regardless, that wouldn't be a problem if Class<GenericFoo>
could be casted — either implicitly or explicitly — to Class<GenericFoo<?>>
.
推荐答案
首先,原始类型和通配符类型完全不同.首先,原始类型会完全擦除所有通用信息.
First of all, raw type and wildcard type are quite different. For one, raw type completely erases all generic information.
所以我们有List<x>
和List<y>
,其中x不是y.这当然不是子类型关系.
So we have List<x>
and List<y>
where x is not y. This is certainly not subtype relationship.
尽管如此,您仍然可以要求强制转换.但是请阅读 JLS 5.5.1 ,然后告诉我您要添加更多内容:)浏览整个页面,实际上,这是一长串仅用于投射的文本.
You can, nevertheless, ask the casting to be allowed. But please readJLS 5.5.1 , and tell me you want to add something more to it:) Browse the whole page, actually, it's a great wall of text just for casting.
请记住,这只是整个效果中的第一个涟漪. List<List<x>>
和List<List<y>>
等如何
And remember this is just the first ripple in the whole effect. What about List<List<x>>
and List<List<y>>
, etc.
这篇关于为什么我不能投放Collection< GenericFoo>到Collection< GenericFoo> ;?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持!