Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > Ok, then let us actually test that and show it is valid[1]:
> >
> > class A {}
> > class B:A {}
> >
> > void main() {
> > A[] a = new B[6];
> > a[0] = new A();
> > }
> >
> > 1. http://ideone.com/5sUZt
> >
> > I have shown that what I am talking about is valid for Arrays (a container)
> > but not templates. The issues of actually implementing it is not related
> > to what I was replying to. I introduced it as a benefit to forgetting type
> > information in "generics." I was then told "Having a container of one type
> > should not be castable to a container of another type." So I am pointing
> > out we need to remove this feature from arrays right now!
>
> In Java, you can't use generics with arrays, so it's not an issue.
>
> But if the D code you give here compiles, then that's a bug and needs to be
> reported.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
Java you will see that it has no issue converting the container, but throws an
exception if inserting the wrong type:
http://ideone.com/EZRvn
Ok, I see the point:
class A {}
class B:A { void fly() {} }
void main() {
B[] b = new B[6];
A[] a = b;
a[0] = new A();
b[0].fly();
}
http://ideone.com/rLiVL
Which is why others were saying you could have B converted to a const container
of A as this conversion is good for passing a container of B to a function that
takes a container of A.
