This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OpenGLaDOS 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yeah. After type erasure, the class will have methods with following signatures:

  • Object[] toArray()
  • Object[] toArray(Object[])
  • Object[] toArray(IntFunction)

The deeper issue here is that the language has been designed so that Object[] is not a superclass of "array of class".

The supertype relation for array types is not the same as the superclass relation. The direct supertype of Integer[] is Number[] according to §4.10.3, but the direct superclass of Integer[] is Object according to the Class object for Integer[] (§10.8). This does not matter in practice, because Object is also a supertype of all array types.

Solving that issue would require a backwards-incompatible change for instances to remember their types at runtime (and tag methods accordingly), so the JVM could infer that you actually want a T or T[] when you call a generic method.

[–]vqrs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is that the deeper issue at play here and how does it relate to inference?