Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [compiler][1.5] compiler allows adding Object to List<? super Number> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Tom Hofmann <eclipse> |
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | Philipe Mulet <philippe_mulet> |
| Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | dirk_baeumer, markus.kell.r, trevor |
| Version: | 3.1 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 3.1 M5 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux-GTK | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
Philippe, I encounter the same problem when implementing assigment compatibility accross contexts. I fixed it by distingusish between isAssignmentCompatible and isTypeArgumentCompatible because both need different rules: List<? extens Number>= List<Integer> but ? extends Number != Integer List<? super Number>= List<Object> but ? super Number != Object Another case:
public class A<T extends Number> {
List<? super T> lhs;
List<? extends Number> rhs;
{
lhs.add(rhs.get(0));
}
}
Javac rejects this
Another case:
public class A<U extends Number> {
List<? super Number> lhs;
List<? super U> rhs;
{
lhs.add(rhs.get(0));
}
}
public class A<U extends Number> {
List<? super Integer> lhs;
List<? extends Number> rhs;
{
lhs.add(rhs.get(0));
}
}
import java.util.List;
public class A<U extends Number> {
List<? super Number> lhs;
List<? super Integer> rhs;
{
lhs.add(rhs.get(0));
}
}
Added GenericTypeTest#test475-481. Problem comes from wrong wildcard SUPER bound check implementation. Indeed the parameterized type compared ok. Fixed, thanks for all test cases (all exposing the same one issue) *** Bug 84091 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Verified in I20050214 |
I20050118 The following class compiles, but should not (javac complains): package test1; import java.util.List; public class SuperAssignment { void method(List<? super Number> list) { list.add(new Object()); // should fail list.add(new Integer(3)); // correct } }