188 * The method {...@code clone} for*class* {...@code Object} performs a
189 * specific cloning operation. First, if the*class* of
this*object*does
190 * not implement the interface {...@code Cloneable}, then a
191 * {...@code CloneNotSupportedException} is thrown. Note that all
arrays
192 * are considered to implement the interface {...@code Cloneable} and
that
193 * the return*type*of the {...@code clone} method of an array*type*
194 * {...@code T[]} is {...@code T[]}.
195 * Otherwise, this method creates a new*instance*of the*class* of this
196 **object*and initializes all its fields with exactly the contents of
197 * the corresponding fields of this*object*, as if by assignment; the
198 * contents of the fields are not themselves cloned. Thus, this method
199 * performs a "shallow copy" of this*object*, not a "deep copy"
operation.
Hm,
the whole enclosing paragraph talks about class, object and instance, so why talk about type for the
array case?
-Ulf
Am 04.09.2010 00:53, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
Ulf,
The spec needs to talk about *both* class (runtime) and type (compile-time).
And now it does.
Martin
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 15:31, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de
<mailto:ulf.zi...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 04.09.2010 00:05, schrieb Joe Darcy:
Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 03.09.2010 12:31, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
I think the question of variable types belongs to the spec, but
here in Object
class's javadoc we should speak about objects. So I now suggest:
"...and that the returned object of the {...@code clone} method
of an array object of
class {...@code T[]} is of class {...@code T[]} where T is any
[raw]? reference or
primitive class. See java language specification version 3, section
6.4.5"
And additionally 2 cents: As T is often used for parameter type in
context with
generics, I think, X would leed to less misinterpretation and would
match better to
the according spec.
I think the text as suggested by Martin with the explicit definition of
T is sufficiently
clear as-is.
-Joe
I still think, it would be more clear to speak about classes here rather
then about types.
See:
Number[] na = new Integer[123];
na[0] = new Integer(456);
Integer[] ia = (Integer[])na.clone();
na is of type Number[]
ia is of type Integer[] and too of type Number[]
but ia contains object of class Integer[]
-Ulf
