• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Tim Cooke
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Mike London

generic class declaration

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 50
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hello,

can anyone tell me why

class Test<T extends Number> {}

is perfectly legal, but

class Test<T super Number> {}

not?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 513
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Serg,

Welcome to Javaranch. Basically, the issue here is that Java does not allow lower bounds for type parameters, i.e. "<T super Foo>" is always invalid syntax. It does allow lower bounds for wildcards, e.g. "<? super Foo>".

You may want to check out this other thread from last week where we briefly discussed this same issue.
 
Serg Masow
Ranch Hand
Posts: 50
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Kelvin,

many thanks for your answer and the link.
 
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic