Reputation: 27435
I mean, is there any good reason for that? The method's got the following signature:
public static Object newInstance(Class<?> componentType,
int length)
throws NegativeArraySizeException
In my opinion, it would be much more convinient to declare the method as follows:
public static <T> T[] newInstance(Class<T> componentType, int length)
throws NegativeArraySizeException
That way, when creating an aray of generic type it would not be neccesary to perform additional casting, e.g.
public class Gen<T>{
private T[] a;
public static <T> Gen<T> createByClass(Class<T> clazz){
a = clazz.cast(Array.newIntance(clazz.getComponentType(), 8); //we have to invoke
//clazz.cast here.
}
}
Was there any good reason to declare the return value type as Object
? To me it seems very incovinient.
Upvotes: 13
Views: 1650
Reputation: 15706
You can use Array.newInstance(Class<?> componentType, int length)
to create
Integer[] a = (Integer[])Array.newInstance(Integer.class, 5);
int[] b = (int[])Array.newInstance(int.class, 5);
int[][] c = (int[][])Array.newInstance(b.getClass(), 5);
The second example illustrates why this method cannot just return a generic array of objects, as arrays of primitves aren't array of objects (arrays of arrays, on the other hand, are).
Using this helper method...
private static <T> T[] newArray(Class<?> type, int len){
return (T[])Array.newInstance(type, len);
}
...with int[] b = newArray(int.class, 5);
will result in a compilation error:
Incompatible types, required int[], but found T[]
...and with int[] b = (int[])newArray(int.class, 5);
will result in a compilation error:
cannot cast Object[] to int[]
Upvotes: 13