> [...] will never happen because you can’t invoke a method of an object that > can never exist."
Only if your name isn't Chunk Norris can you be safe... D. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the pointer! This related example in this blog post says it all: > > "[...] So why does it seem like Foo<String> should be invalid? How is it bar > safe? Well, the answer to both is the same: Foo<String> is uninstantiable. > You’ll never be able to create an instance of Foo<String> because String is > not a subtype of Number. Thus the seemingly unsafe invocation of foo in bar > will never happen because you can’t invoke a method of an object that can > never exist." > > Took a while, but now I understand it :-) > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: [email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dawid Weiss [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:15 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Uwe Schindler (SD DataSolutions GmbH) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Something for Generics Policeman >> >> Hi Uwe! >> >> I thought I'd share something that will send you down the spiral of >> looped insanity: a bug in the type Java's generic type system. Enjoy >> the read! >> >> https://hackernoon.com/java-is-unsound-28c84cb2b3f >> >> Dawid >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
