1244

Due to the implementation of Java generics, you can't have code like this:

public class GenSet<E> {
    private E a[];

    public GenSet() {
        a = new E[INITIAL_ARRAY_LENGTH]; // Error: generic array creation
    }
}

How can I implement this while maintaining type safety?

I saw a solution on the Java forums that goes like this:

import java.lang.reflect.Array;

class Stack<T> {
    public Stack(Class<T> clazz, int capacity) {
        array = (T[])Array.newInstance(clazz, capacity);
    }

    private final T[] array;
}

What's going on?

4
  • 21
    Do you really need to use an array here? What about using a Collection?
    – matt b
    Commented Feb 9, 2009 at 18:34
  • 17
    Yes I also think that collections are more elegant to for this problem. But this is for a class assignment and they are required :( Commented Feb 9, 2009 at 19:47
  • 5
    I do not understand why I need a reflect here.Java grammar is strange: like new java.util.HashMap<String,String>[10] is not valid. new java.util.HashMap<long,long>(10) is not valid. new long[][10] is not valid, new long[10][] is valid. That stuff make write a program that can write java program is more difficult then it looks like.
    – bronze man
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 2:46
  • Very surprising such an important feature has (still) no elegant solution (Java 20) Commented Nov 11, 2023 at 9:19

32 Answers 32

784

I have to ask a question in return: is your GenSet "checked" or "unchecked"? What does that mean?

  • Checked: strong typing. GenSet knows explicitly what type of objects it contains (i.e. its constructor was explicitly called with a Class<E> argument, and methods will throw an exception when they are passed arguments that are not of type E. See Collections.checkedCollection.

    -> in that case, you should write:

    public class GenSet<E> {
    
        private E[] a;
    
        public GenSet(Class<E> c, int s) {
            // Use Array native method to create array
            // of a type only known at run time
            @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
            final E[] a = (E[]) Array.newInstance(c, s);
            this.a = a;
        }
    
        E get(int i) {
            return a[i];
        }
    }
    
  • Unchecked: weak typing. No type checking is actually done on any of the objects passed as argument.

    -> in that case, you should write

    public class GenSet<E> {
    
        private Object[] a;
    
        public GenSet(int s) {
            a = new Object[s];
        }
    
        E get(int i) {
            @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
            final E e = (E) a[i];
            return e;
        }
    }
    

    Note that the component type of the array should be the erasure of the type parameter:

    public class GenSet<E extends Foo> { // E has an upper bound of Foo
    
        private Foo[] a; // E erases to Foo, so use Foo[]
    
        public GenSet(int s) {
            a = new Foo[s];
        }
    
        ...
    }
    

All of this results from a known, and deliberate, weakness of generics in Java: it was implemented using erasure, so "generic" classes don't know what type argument they were created with at run time, and therefore can not provide type-safety unless some explicit mechanism (type-checking) is implemented.

9
  • 8
    What would performance-wise be the best option? I need to get elements from this array quite often (within a loop). So a collection is probably slower, but which of these two is fastest? Commented Sep 8, 2012 at 3:52
  • 4
    And if the generic type is bounded, the backing array should be of the bounding type.
    – Mordechai
    Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 5:59
  • 5
    @AaronDigulla Just to clarify that's not assignment, but initialization of a local variable. You can't annotate an expression/statement.
    – kennytm
    Commented Sep 26, 2013 at 12:17
  • 2
    For those who want to make a method with a generic type (which was what I was looking for), use this: public void <T> T[] newArray(Class<T> type, int length) { ... } Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 14:44
  • 2
    @gozzilli Sadly not, because Java generics are basically, well, fake. You can't do anything without also having the class object.
    – Nyerguds
    Commented Nov 6, 2017 at 8:44
272

You can do this:

E[] arr = (E[])new Object[INITIAL_ARRAY_LENGTH];

This is one of the suggested ways of implementing a generic collection in Effective Java; Item 26. No type errors, no need to cast the array repeatedly. However this triggers a warning because it is potentially dangerous, and should be used with caution. As detailed in the comments, this Object[] is now masquerading as our E[] type, and can cause unexpected errors or ClassCastExceptions if used unsafely.

As a rule of thumb, this behavior is safe as long as the cast array is used internally (e.g. to back a data structure), and not returned or exposed to client code. Should you need to return an array of a generic type to other code, the reflection Array class you mention is the right way to go.


Worth mentioning that wherever possible, you'll have a much happier time working with Lists rather than arrays if you're using generics. Certainly sometimes you don't have a choice, but using the collections framework is far more robust.

19
  • 51
    This will not work if the array is treated as a typed array of any kind, such as String[] s=b; in the above test() method. That's because the array of E isn't really, it's Object[]. This matters if you want, e.g. a List<String>[] - you can't use an Object[] for that, you must have a List[] specifically. Which is why you need to use the reflected Class<?> array creation. Commented Oct 11, 2010 at 16:09
  • 8
    The corner-case/problem is if you want to do, for example, public E[] toArray() { return (E[])internalArray.clone(); } when internalArray is typed as E[], and is therefore actually an Object[]. This fails at runtime with a type-cast exception because an Object[] cannot be assigned to an array of whatever type E happens to be. Commented Aug 10, 2011 at 20:04
  • 19
    Basically, this approach will work as long as you do not return the array or pass it or store it in some place outside of the class that requires an array of a certain type. As long as you're inside the class you're fine because E is erased. It's "dangerous" because if you try to return it or something, you get no warning that it's unsafe. But if you're careful then it works.
    – newacct
    Commented Sep 23, 2011 at 22:07
  • 3
    It is quite safe. In E[] b = (E[])new Object[1]; you can clearly see that the only reference to the created array is b and that the type of b is E[]. Therefore there is no danger of you accidentally accessing the same array through a different variable of a different type. If instead, you had Object[] a = new Object[1]; E[]b = (E[])a; then you would need to be paranoid about how you use a. Commented Jan 21, 2012 at 19:53
  • 5
    At least in Java 1.6, this generates a warning: "Unchecked cast from Object[] to T[]"
    – Quantum7
    Commented Mar 24, 2012 at 0:42
72

Here's how to use generics to get an array of precisely the type you’re looking for while preserving type safety (as opposed to the other answers, which will either give you back an Object array or result in warnings at compile time):

import java.lang.reflect.Array;  

public class GenSet<E> {  
    private E[] a;  
    
    public GenSet(Class<E[]> type, int length) {  
        a = type.cast(Array.newInstance(type.getComponentType(), length));  
    }  
    
    public static void main(String[] args) {  
        GenSet<String> foo = new GenSet<String>(String[].class, 1);  
        String[] bar = foo.a;  
        foo.a[0] = "xyzzy";  
        String baz = foo.a[0];  
    }  
}

That compiles without warnings, and as you can see in main, for whatever type you declare an instance of GenSet as, you can assign a to an array of that type, and you can assign an element from a to a variable of that type, meaning that the array and the values in the array are of the correct type.

It works by using class literals as runtime type tokens, as discussed in the Java Tutorials. Class literals are treated by the compiler as instances of java.lang.Class. To use one, simply follow the name of a class with .class. So, String.class acts as a Class object representing the class String. This also works for interfaces, enums, any-dimensional arrays (e.g. String[].class), primitives (e.g. int.class), and the keyword void (i.e. void.class).

Class itself is generic (declared as Class<T>, where T stands for the type that the Class object is representing), meaning that the type of String.class is Class<String>.

So, whenever you call the constructor for GenSet, you pass in a class literal for the first argument representing an array of the GenSet instance's declared type (e.g. String[].class for GenSet<String>). Note that you won't be able to get an array of primitives, since primitives can't be used for type variables.

Inside the constructor, calling the method cast returns the passed Object argument cast to the class represented by the Class object on which the method was called. Calling the static method newInstance in java.lang.reflect.Array returns as an Object an array of the type represented by the Class object passed as the first argument and of the length specified by the int passed as the second argument. Calling the method getComponentType returns a Class object representing the component type of the array represented by the Class object on which the method was called (e.g. String.class for String[].class, null if the Class object doesn't represent an array).

That last sentence isn't entirely accurate. Calling String[].class.getComponentType() returns a Class object representing the class String, but its type is Class<?>, not Class<String>, which is why you can't do something like the following.

String foo = String[].class.getComponentType().cast("bar"); // won't compile

Same goes for every method in Class that returns a Class object.

Regarding Joachim Sauer's comment on this answer (I don't have enough reputation to comment on it myself), the example using the cast to T[] will result in a warning because the compiler can't guarantee type safety in that case.


Edit regarding Ingo's comments:

public static <T> T[] newArray(Class<T[]> type, int size) {
   return type.cast(Array.newInstance(type.getComponentType(), size));
}
13
  • 6
    This is useless, it is only a complicated way to write new String[...]. But what is really needed is something like public static <T> T[] newArray(int size) { ... }, and this simply does not exist in java noir can it be simulated with reflection - the reason is that information about how a generic type is instantiated is not available at runtime.
    – Ingo
    Commented Mar 21, 2011 at 10:11
  • 4
    @Ingo What are you talking about? My code can be used to create an array of any type.
    – gdejohn
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 12:34
  • 3
    @Charlatan: Sure, but so can new []. The question is: who knows the type and when. Therefore, if all you have is a generic type, you can't.
    – Ingo
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 12:48
  • 2
    I don't doubt that. The point is, you don't get a Class object at runtime for generic type X.
    – Ingo
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 12:58
  • 2
    Almost. I admit that this is more than what can be achieved with new[]. In practice, this will almost always do the job. However, it is still not possible, for instance, to write a container class parameterized with E that has a method E[] toArray() and that indeed returns a true E[] array. Your code could be applied only when there is at least one E-object in the collection. So, a general solution is impossible.
    – Ingo
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 13:31
46

This is the only answer that is type-safe:

E[] a;

a = newArray(size);

@SafeVarargs
static <E> E[] newArray(int length, E... array)
{
    return Arrays.copyOf(array, length);
}
9
  • I had to look it up, but yes, the second "length" argument to Arrays#copyOf() is independent of the length of the array supplied as the first argument. That's clever, though it does pay the cost of calls to Math#min() and System#arrayCopy(), neither of which are strictly necessary to get this job done. docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/…
    – seh
    Commented Oct 4, 2012 at 19:53
  • 13
    This does not work if E is a type variable. The varargs creates an array of erasure of E when E is a type variable, making it not much different from (E[])new Object[n]. Please see http://ideone.com/T8xF91. It is by no means more type safe than any other answer.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 4:13
  • 1
    @Radiodef - the solution is provably type-safe at compile time. note that erasure is not exactly part of the language spec; the spec is written carefully so that we could have full reification in future - and then this solution would work perfectly at runtime too, unlike other solutions.
    – ZhongYu
    Commented May 18, 2015 at 18:35
  • 2
    @Radiodef - There are some differences. The correctness of this solution is checked by the compiler; it does not rely on human reasoning of forced cast. The difference is not significant for this particular problem. Some people just like to be a little fancy, that's all. If anyone is misled by OP's wording, it's clarified by your comments and mine.
    – ZhongYu
    Commented May 18, 2015 at 19:19
  • 1
    @irreputable I like this, but I don't think you need the length, you could just write it as return Arrays.copyOf(Objects.requireNonNull(array), array.length);
    – Eugene
    Commented Nov 10, 2018 at 19:25
36

To extend to more dimensions, just add []'s and dimension parameters to newInstance() (T is a type parameter, cls is a Class<T>, d1 through d5 are integers):

T[] array = (T[])Array.newInstance(cls, d1);
T[][] array = (T[][])Array.newInstance(cls, d1, d2);
T[][][] array = (T[][][])Array.newInstance(cls, d1, d2, d3);
T[][][][] array = (T[][][][])Array.newInstance(cls, d1, d2, d3, d4);
T[][][][][] array = (T[][][][][])Array.newInstance(cls, d1, d2, d3, d4, d5);

See Array.newInstance() for details.

1
  • 6
    +1 There have been questions about multi-dimensional array creation that get closed as dupes of this post - but no answers had specifically addressed that. Commented Aug 15, 2013 at 13:52
16

This is covered in Chapter 5 (Generics) of Effective Java, 2nd Edition, item 25...Prefer lists to arrays

Your code will work, although it will generate an unchecked warning (which you could suppress with the following annotation:

@SuppressWarnings({"unchecked"})

However, it would probably be better to use a List instead of an Array.

There's an interesting discussion of this bug/feature on the OpenJDK project site.

16

In Java 8, we can do a kind of generic array creation using a lambda or method reference. This is similar to the reflective approach (which passes a Class), but here we aren't using reflection.

@FunctionalInterface
interface ArraySupplier<E> {
    E[] get(int length);
}

class GenericSet<E> {
    private final ArraySupplier<E> supplier;
    private E[] array;

    GenericSet(ArraySupplier<E> supplier) {
        this.supplier = supplier;
        this.array    = supplier.get(10);
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        GenericSet<String> ofString =
            new GenericSet<>(String[]::new);
        GenericSet<Double> ofDouble =
            new GenericSet<>(Double[]::new);
    }
}

For example, this is used by <A> A[] Stream.toArray(IntFunction<A[]>).

This could also be done pre-Java 8 using anonymous classes but it's more cumbersome.

2
  • You don't really need a special interface like ArraySupplier for this, you can declare the constructor as GenSet(Supplier<E[]> supplier) { ... and call it with the same line as you have.
    – Lii
    Commented Dec 27, 2015 at 23:49
  • 5
    @Lii To be the same as my example, it would be IntFunction<E[]>, but yes that's true.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 16:16
16

You do not need to pass the Class argument to the constructor. Try this.

public class GenSet<T> {

    private final T[] array;

    @SafeVarargs
    public GenSet(int capacity, T... dummy) {
        if (dummy.length > 0)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException(
              "Do not provide values for dummy argument.");
        this.array = Arrays.copyOf(dummy, capacity);
    }

    @Override
    public String toString() {
        return "GenSet of " + array.getClass().getComponentType().getName()
            + "[" + array.length + "]";
    }
}

and

GenSet<Integer> intSet = new GenSet<>(3);
System.out.println(intSet);
System.out.println(new GenSet<String>(2));

result:

GenSet of java.lang.Integer[3]
GenSet of java.lang.String[2]
2
  • This answer is awesome, for the sake of an unused varargs parameter, you get full array type compatibility without messing with Class objects or Reflection. Hopefully the JDK can save the cost of constructing a new empty array at every call point, and reuse the same empty array, otherwise the downside is a niggling amount of Object churn.
    – gary
    Commented Nov 6, 2022 at 13:16
  • It is good to note that even though the compiler is warning about potential heap pollution, but this can safely be ignored by the @SafeVarargs-annotation because there cannot be any "bad value" in the vararg (since there cannot be any value).
    – STh
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 12:16
7

Java generics work by checking types at compile time and inserting appropriate casts, but erasing the types in the compiled files. This makes generic libraries usable by code which doesn't understand generics (which was a deliberate design decision) but which means you can't normally find out what the type is at run time.

The public Stack(Class<T> clazz,int capacity) constructor requires you to pass a Class object at run time, which means class information is available at runtime to code that needs it. And the Class<T> form means that the compiler will check that the Class object you pass is precisely the Class object for type T. Not a subclass of T, not a superclass of T, but precisely T.

This then means that you can create an array object of the appropriate type in your constructor, which means that the type of the objects you store in your collection will have their types checked at the point they are added to the collection.

7

What about this solution?

@SafeVarargs
public static <T> T[] toGenericArray(T ... elems) {
    return elems;
}

It works and looks too simple to be true. Is there any drawback?

2
  • 4
    Neat, but only works if you call it 'manually', i.e. pass the elements individually. If you can't create a new instance of T[], then you can't programatically build up a T[] elems to pass into the function. And if you could, you wouldn't need the function.
    – orlade
    Commented Aug 29, 2016 at 1:41
  • Answers are not the place for questions. Stack Overflow is not a forum Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 1:17
7

Generics are used for type checking during compile time. Therefore, the purpose is to check

  • What comes in is what you need.
  • What you return is what the consumer needs.

Check this:

Enter image description here

Don't worry about typecasting warnings when you are writing a generic class; worry when you are using it.

6

The example is using Java reflection to create an array. Doing this is generally not recommended, since it isn't typesafe. Instead, what you should do is just use an internal List, and avoid the array at all.

1
  • 14
    The second example (using Array.newInstance()) is in fact typesafe. This is possible because the type T of the Class object needs to match the T of the array. It basically forces you to provide the information that the Java runtime discards for generics. Commented Feb 9, 2009 at 22:41
6

Passing a list of values...

public <T> T[] array(T... values) {
    return values;
}
5

Look also to this code:

public static <T> T[] toArray(final List<T> obj) {
    if (obj == null || obj.isEmpty()) {
        return null;
    }
    final T t = obj.get(0);
    final T[] res = (T[]) Array.newInstance(t.getClass(), obj.size());
    for (int i = 0; i < obj.size(); i++) {
        res[i] = obj.get(i);
    }
    return res;
}

It converts a list of any kind of object to an array of the same type.

3
  • Yes, you return null, which isn't the expected empty array. It is the best you can do, but not ideal.
    – Kevin Cox
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 14:49
  • This can also fail if the List has more than one type of object in it e.g. toArray(Arrays.asList("abc", new Object())) will throw ArrayStoreException.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 4:36
  • I used a stripped down version of this; first thing I was able to use that worked, though admittedly I didn't try some of the more involved solutions. To avoid a for loop and others I used Arrays.fill(res, obj); since I wanted the same value for each index.
    – bbarker
    Commented Aug 10, 2015 at 1:04
5

I have found a quick and easy way that works for me. Note that I have only used this on Java JDK 8. I don't know if it will work with previous versions.

Although we cannot instantiate a generic array of a specific type parameter, we can pass an already created array to a generic class constructor.

class GenArray <T> {
    private T theArray[]; // Reference array
    
    // ...
    
    GenArray(T[] arr) {
        theArray = arr;
    }

    // Do whatever with the array...
}

Now in main we can create the array like so:

class GenArrayDemo {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int size = 10; // array size
        // Here we can instantiate the array of the type we want, say Character (no primitive types allowed in generics)
        Character[] ar = new Character[size];
        
        GenArray<Character> = new Character<>(ar); // Create the generic Array
        
        // ...
        
    }
}

For more flexibility with your arrays, you can use a linked list e.g., the ArrayList and other methods found in the Java.util.ArrayList class.

3

I made this code snippet to reflectively instantiate a class which is passed for a simple automated test utility.

Object attributeValue = null;
try {
    if(clazz.isArray()){
        Class<?> arrayType = clazz.getComponentType();
        attributeValue = Array.newInstance(arrayType, 0);
    }
    else if(!clazz.isInterface()){
        attributeValue = BeanUtils.instantiateClass(clazz);
    }
} catch (Exception e) {
    logger.debug("Cannot instanciate \"{}\"", new Object[]{clazz});
}

Note this segment:

    if(clazz.isArray()){
        Class<?> arrayType = clazz.getComponentType();
        attributeValue = Array.newInstance(arrayType, 0);
    }

for array initiating where Array.newInstance(class of array, size of array). Class can be both primitive (int.class) and object (Integer.class).

BeanUtils is part of Spring.

2

The forced cast suggested by other people did not work for me, throwing an exception of illegal casting.

However, this implicit cast worked fine:

Item<K>[] array = new Item[SIZE];

where Item is a class I defined containing the member:

private K value;

This way you get an array of type K (if the item only has the value) or any generic type you want defined in the class Item.

0
2

Actually an easier way to do so, is to create an array of objects and cast it to your desired type like the following example:

T[] array = (T[])new Object[SIZE];

where SIZE is a constant and T is a type identifier

2
  • Gives java.lang.ClassCastException: [Ljava.lang.Object; cannot be cast to [Ljava.util.concurrent.TransferQueue;
    – weberjn
    Commented Aug 11, 2021 at 12:13
  • @weberjn A generic array field private T[] a is type erased to the first class that T is declared to extend in the class template declaration. eg class GenSet<T extends TransferQueue> would declare private field a as TransferQueue[] not Object[], that's why you have a ClassCastException.
    – gary
    Commented Nov 6, 2022 at 13:05
1

No one else has answered the question of what is going on in the example you posted.

import java.lang.reflect.Array;

class Stack<T> {
    public Stack(Class<T> clazz, int capacity) {
        array = (T[])Array.newInstance(clazz, capacity);
    }

    private final T[] array;
}

As others have said generics are "erased" during compilation. So at runtime an instance of a generic doesn't know what its component type is. The reason for this is historical, Sun wanted to add generics without breaking the existing interface (both source and binary).

Arrays on the other hand do know their component type at runtime.

This example works around the problem by having the code that calls the constructor (which does know the type) pass a parameter telling the class the required type.

So the application would construct the class with something like

Stack<foo> = new Stack<foo>(foo.class,50)

and the constructor now knows (at runtime) what the component type is and can use that information to construct the array through the reflection API.

Array.newInstance(clazz, capacity);

Finally we have a type cast because the compiler has no way of knowing that the array returned by Array#newInstance() is the correct type (even though we know).

This style is a bit ugly but it can sometimes be the least bad solution to creating generic types that do need to know their component type at runtime for whatever reason (creating arrays, or creating instances of their component type, etc.).

1

I found a sort of a workaround to this problem.

The line below throws generic array creation error:

List<Person>[] personLists=new ArrayList<Person>()[10];

However, if I encapsulate List<Person> in a separate class, it works.

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;


public class PersonList {

    List<Person> people;

    public PersonList()
    {
        people=new ArrayList<Person>();
    }
}

You can expose people in the class PersonList through a getter. The line below will give you an array, that has a List<Person> in every element. In other words array of List<Person>.

PersonList[] personLists=new PersonList[10];

I needed something like this in some code I was working on and this is what I did to get it to work. So far there aren't any problems.

1

Generic array creation is disallowed in Java, but you can do it like:

class Stack<T> {

    private final T[] array;

    public Stack(int capacity) {
        array = (T[]) new Object[capacity];
    }
}
0

You could create an Object array and cast it to E everywhere. Yeah, it's not very clean way to do it but it should at least work.

4
  • "We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is correct, ideally with citations. Answers without explanations may be removed."
    – gparyani
    Commented Sep 16, 2014 at 15:46
  • BUt that won`t work in some cases like if your generic class wants to implement Comparable interface. Commented Apr 21, 2016 at 8:55
  • Welcome to seven years ago, I suppose.
    – Esko
    Commented Apr 26, 2016 at 19:03
  • 1
    This will not work if you try to return the array from the generic code to a non-generic caller. There will be a head-scrating classcastexception.
    – plugwash
    Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 12:52
0

Maybe unrelated to this question but while I was getting the "generic array creation" error for using

Tuple<Long,String>[] tupleArray = new Tuple<Long,String>[10];

I find out the following works (and worked for me) with @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked"}):

 Tuple<Long, String>[] tupleArray = new Tuple[10];
1
  • Yeah, this is not quite related, but rooted in the same issues (erasure, array covariance). Here's an example of a post about creating arrays of parameterized types: stackoverflow.com/questions/9542076/… Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 16:23
0

You could use a cast:

public class GenSet<Item> {
    private Item[] a;

    public GenSet(int s) {
        a = (Item[]) new Object[s];
    }
}
1
  • If you are going to suggest this, you really need to explain its limitations. Never expose a to outside the class!
    – Radiodef
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 4:00
0

If you really want to wrap a generic array of fixed size you will have a method to add data to that array, hence you can initialize properly the array there doing something like this:

import java.lang.reflect.Array;

class Stack<T> {
    private T[] array = null;
    private final int capacity = 10; // fixed or pass it in the constructor
    private int pos = 0;

    public void push(T value) {
        if (value == null)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("Stack does not accept nulls");
        if (array == null)
            array = (T[]) Array.newInstance(value.getClass(), capacity);
        // put logic: e.g.
        if(pos == capacity)
             throw new IllegalStateException("push on full stack");
        array[pos++] = value;
    }

    public T pop() throws IllegalStateException {
        if (pos == 0)
            throw new IllegalStateException("pop on empty stack");
        return array[--pos];
    }
}

in this case you use a java.lang.reflect.Array.newInstance to create the array, and it will not be an Object[], but a real T[]. You should not worry of it not being final, since it is managed inside your class. Note that you need a non null object on the push() to be able to get the type to use, so I added a check on the data you push and throw an exception there.

Still this is somewhat pointless: you store data via push and it is the signature of the method that guarantees only T elements will enter. So it is more or less irrelevant that the array is Object[] or T[].

0

I'm wondering if this code would create an effective generic array?

public T [] createArray(int desiredSize){
    ArrayList<T> builder = new ArrayList<T>();
    for(int x=0;x<desiredSize;x++){
        builder.add(null);
    }
    return builder.toArray(zeroArray());
}

//zeroArray should, in theory, create a zero-sized array of T
//when it is not given any parameters.

private T [] zeroArray(T... i){
    return i;
}

Perhaps an alternate way of creating such an array, if the size you required was known and small, would be to simply feed the required number of "null"s into the zeroArray command?

Though obviously this isn't as versatile as using the createArray code.

1
  • No, this does not work. The varargs creates erasure of T when T is a type variable, i.e. zeroArray returns an Object[]. See http://ideone.com/T8xF91.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 4:03
0

I actually found a pretty unique solution to bypass the inability to initiate a generic array. You have to create a class that takes in the generic variable T like so:

class GenericInvoker <T> {
    T variable;
    public GenericInvoker(T variable){
        this.variable = variable;
    }
}

And then in your array class, just have it start like so:

GenericInvoker<T>[] array;
public MyArray(){
    array = new GenericInvoker[];
}

starting a new Generic Invoker[] will cause an issue with unchecked but there shouldn't actually be any issues.

To get from the array you should call the array[i].variable like so:

public T get(int index){
    return array[index].variable;
}

The rest, such as resizing the array can be done with Arrays.copyOf() like so:

public void resize(int newSize){
    array = Arrays.copyOf(array, newSize);
}

And the add function can be added like so:

public boolean add(T element){
    // The variable size below is equal to how many times the add function has been called
    // and is used to keep track of where to put the next variable in the array
    arrays[size] = new GenericInvoker(element);
    size++;
}
6
  • 1
    The question was about creating an array of the type of the generic type parameter T, not an array of some parameterized type. Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 15:14
  • It completes the same task though and doesn't require you pushing in a class making your custom collection easier to use. Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 23:50
  • What task? It's literally a different task: an array of a paramaterized type vs an array of a generic type parameter. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 0:16
  • It allows you to create an array from a generic type? The original problem was initializing an array using a generic type which using my method allows you to do without having to have the user push in a class or give an unchecked error such as trying to cast an Object to a String. Like chill, I'm not the best at what I do, and I haven't gone to school for programming but I think I still deserve a little input rather than being told off by some other kid on the internet. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 23:53
  • I agree with Sotiros. There are two ways to think of the answer. Either it is an answer to a different question, or it is an attempt to generalize the question. Both are wrong / not helpful. People who are looking for guidance on how to implement a "generic array" class would / stop reading when they read the question title. And when they find an Q with 30 answers, they are highly unlikely to scroll to the end and read a zero vote answer from a SO newcomer.
    – Stephen C
    Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 23:00
0

Arrays do not support generics (because it's another type of data), but you can use undeterminate generics while its creation if you don't need casting. By the way, it's better than using reflection:

List<?>[] chars = new List[3];

So now we are getting the legal generics array even without Unchecked type warning.

0

The syntax

GenSet<Integer> intSet[] = new GenSet[3];

creates an array of null references, to be filled as

for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
   intSet[i] = new GenSet<Integer>();
}

which is type safe.

1
  • Who or what is "vnportnoy"? Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 1:29
-1

An easy, albeit messy workaround to this would be to nest a second "holder" class inside of your main class, and use it to hold your data.

public class Whatever<Thing>{
    private class Holder<OtherThing>{
        OtherThing thing;
    }
    public Holder<Thing>[] arrayOfHolders = new Holder<Thing>[10]
}
1
  • 4
    This doesn't actually work. new Holder<Thing>[10] is a generic array creation.
    – Radiodef
    Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 19:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.