I think it might stem back to the opening few sentences of this: http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/11/reified-generics-for-java.html
>From a quick reading, I can understand how people would just make the blanket statement that they are not even in the generated classes without actually looking further or trying to see what you can do with the Class. On Dec 17, 8:46 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't understand why people (including the posse themselves) > continue to be confused about type erasure. > > it's -very- simple. > > Generics is _never_ erased from TYPES. It is _always_ erased from > OBJECTS. > > That's all there is to it. > > On Dec 16, 7:32 pm, "d.j.hagberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There was an excellent post by Kohsuke today on java.net that talks > > about how to use the java.lang.reflect.Type class to introspect > > generics and write code that can handle signatures of List<String> vs. > > List<Integer> correctly. > > > I think this answers the question of how javac, jaxb, and other > > utilities handle generics - even though there is type erasure for > > backwards compatibility, there is still enough signature in the .class > > files to get at this info: > > >http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kohsuke/archive/2008/12/introspecting_g.... > > > Very, very cool. > > -=- D. J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
