toArray

[Remi Forax]

On 12/16/2012 04:01 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> This works if you're willing to throw static type safety out the 
> window; we have no compile-time guarantee that U[] is compatible with 
> elements of type T.

yes, it's pragmatic choice.
Few years back, i realize that a lot of Java developers never seen an 
ArrayStoreException or have trouble to remember the last time they saw one.

Rémi

>
>
>
> On 12/16/2012 5:30 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> On 12/16/2012 01:08 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>> Seems that the minimally invasive version of toArray (that doesn't
>>> propagate the horrible convention established by Collection, and yet
>>> doesn't foist Object[] on users) is:
>>>
>>>   interface Stream<T> {
>>>       Object[] toArray();
>>>       T[] toArray(Class<T> clazz);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate to need the Object[] version at all. However, code
>>> that is generic in T might be passed a Stream<T> and not know what
>>> class literal to use.  It is further unfortunate that we cannot say
>>>
>>>   <S super T> S[] toArray(Class<S> clazz)
>>>
>>> as then such code could say toArray(Object.class), but we cannot (this
>>> is a limitation of generics.)
>>>
>>
>> why not ?
>>
>> interface Stream<T> {
>>        <U> U[] toArray(Class<U> clazz);
>> }
>>
>> Rémi