RE: [Java Spec Report] reference to nonstatic type from static context

> Roly Perera wrote:
> > At first glance that sounds like a mistake in the JLS.  The
constraint 
> > should only apply to uses of non-static methods and fields.
> > 
> > The rationale I think is that to *name* an inner class one does not 
> > need an instance of its enclosing class, although to 
> *construct* one, 
> > one does.
> 
> With the advent of generics, this is no longer true.
> 
> 
> class A<T> {
>      class B {
>          T t;
>      }
>      static class C {
>          B b = null;
>          {
>              // what is the type of b.t?
>              b.t = "foo";
>          }
>      }
> }

I've only recently started looking at generics so apologies in
advance...

I would naively expect b.t to be of type T, and for T to be in scope
despite the static boundary between A and C.  Clearly I'm wrong.

Roly

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 16/02/2004
 



To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
[email protected]
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/java-spec-report/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/