I declared and initialized myList with a raw reference type of List and a raw object type of ArrayList. Then, I re-referenced myList to a new, generic ArrayList of Longs. I thought that adding anything other than a Long to this list would thus cause an error.
List myList = new ArrayList();
myList = new ArrayList<Long>();
myList.add(3.4d);
myList.add(4.0f);
myList.add("weird");
myList.add('w');
System.out.println(myList);
However, this runs without an error or exception. How is this legal?
If you declare it as List<Long>
you will get static compile time type checking. Do to type erasure the JVM does not know anything about those types at runtime.
List<Long> myList = new ArrayList<>();
myList.add("foo");
Will give a compilation error while:
public void breakGeneric(List list) {
list.add("foo");
}
....
List<Long> myList = new ArrayList<>();
breakGeneric(myList);
will add "foo" to a list no matter what type type is. Most IDEs will worn you about loosing the generic type.
Having the type in the new statement new ArrayList<Long>()
would only have an effect if you chain off of that statement ie new ArrayList<Long>().add("foo")
. That is the only way that a generic type only in the new
statement will cause a compilation problem.