generics

[Lucas Smith]

HashMap<Integer, String> hm = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
Iterator<Map.Entry> a = hm.entrySet().iterator(); //compilation error

Why the raw type must be parametrized? I thought that generics is flexible to fit the legacy code.

[Deepak Bala]

This will work

  Iterator<Entry><Integer, String>> iterator = hm.entrySet().iterator();  

Is your question, 'why cant I just say the iterator contains Map.Entry elements instead of telling the compiler it contains Map.Entry<Integer, String>' ?

[Lucas Smith]

You have mistaken. That works:
Iterator<Map.Entry<Integer, String>> iterator = hm.entrySet().iterator();

But why the type must be parametrized?

That runs well:
HashMap hm = new HashMap<Integer, String>();

So why must the first case be parametrized?

[Henry Wong]

Why the raw type must be parametrized? I thought that generics is flexible to fit the legacy code.

Well, your two choices are...

Iterator<Map.Entry<Integer,String>> a = hm.entrySet().iterator();      // Use Generics
Iterator a = hm.entrySet().iterator();               // Don't Use Generics 

This...

Iterator<Map.Entry> a = hm.entrySet().iterator();                     //compilation error 

is just using Generics, but not correctly. Either you use generics or you don't -- using it partially is not allowed.

Henry

[Lucas Smith]

So what about that:
HashMap hm = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
HashMap<Integer, String> hm = new HashMap();
Both run pretty well.


EDIT:
Well, I see. Your answer if for nested generics. OK, I understand!
Thanks!

EDIT2:
But one more thing:
List<List> list = new ArrayList<List>(); //runs well

Can you explain me that again?

EDIT3:
OK, I will explain it to myself:
List<List> list = new ArrayList<List<String>>(); //doesn't work
Everything is clear!