Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java generics and type erasure Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:22:14 -0400 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <9d4c2b16-beb5-40b1-87a2-f03e971efeed@k17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> <4dde10b0$0$67777$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4ddf0617$0$67777$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <3f7c1f48-f025-48af-b6bd-20463f6651db@e13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <4ddf5c23$0$67779$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.albasani.net wOUodExPTjS0UqRvmO+CUWLKrZvVz5clTzZBxOPL2+EGJdwwcHsAov01xVsRox4dzgW6UiRyWjpC59g+dI6Qn4e2jlutQc+y2rbX7kIk+n2ILHesRXJxt+6ONVZKGxlL NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="qVkKE0Hu6PnLFHFyMgl0FdF6coUg5qSzerO6lty1q3I8MPwKfLxJgJ+nKjHXJLaB+TRsPj5eEpDu7sTPIwKw6+mfwMfY3XfSV2WKq212JZY4NLYiYiWSA2LBPB26D4ln"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: <4ddf5c23$0$67779$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z54UpJJ4ZZ9wPqT6zw3AzSAUEkQ= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4650 Esmond Pitt wrote: > Lew wrote: >> erasure (the way I look at it) is a runtime phenomenon. I don't care if >> it happened during compilation or class load. > That doesn't make sense. Erasure is a state that has already been attained > prior to execution. It can't be a runtime phenomenon as there hasn't been any > runtime yet: indeed there may never be a runtime for it to be a phenomenon of, > e.g. if the class is immediately recompiled prior to any execution, or indeed > never executed at all. You elided the part of my statement that answers your objection. What I *SAID* that you chopped out was: "... it's not the process of erasure that interests me, but the static state of having or not having been erased. Not erased - compile time. Erased - runtime. Therefore erasure (the way I look at it) is a runtime phenomenon. I don't care if it happened during compilation or class load." It makes perfect sense. You will note that I did NOT say that which you refuted; I did NOT say that it got erased at runtime. I said that the runtime phenomenon is the static state of generics HAVING ALREADY BEEN ERASED SOMETIME *PRIOR*. It's the *static* state to which I refer. See, Esmond Pitt? You did not contradict that at all, Esmond Pitt. Get it now, Esmond Pitt? -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg