Abimaran Kugathasan wrote:The iterator method returns generically, but, you assigned it to a non-generic collection. So, you break the generics there, so, you need a cast!
The typed collection that the topic starter is using returns an typed Iterator. However he is then assigning it to a non-typed Iterator so the type information is lost. And because of that the cast is needed.
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand." --- Martin Fowler
Please correct my English.
Wouter Oet wrote:
The typed collection that the topic starter is using returns an typed Iterator. However he is then assigning it to a non-typed Iterator so the type information is lost. And because of that the cast is needed.
This is what I intended to mean, but, may be interpreted slightly different. Does it?
|BSc in Electronic Eng| |SCJP 6.0 91%| |SCWCD 5 92%|
Because it gets erased during compilation. There's no way for the JVM to know what kind of Iterator i is on line 9. It may have changed in the mean time. The compiler recognizes this and forces you to cast the object reference.
This isn't necessary if the Iterator has a generic type, because even though the JVM still won't know what kind of iterator i is at line 9, the compiler sees that it can only return references of that particular type, so you don't have to cast.
Get into the habit of never using raw types. Always parameterize generic types.
[edit]
The question in the last post has been edited away.