Why is the Stream.sorted not type safe in Java 8?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
8
down vote

favorite












This is from the Stream interface from Oracles implementation of JDK 8:



public interface Stream<T> extends BaseStream<T, Stream<T>> 
 Stream<T> sorted();


and it is very easy to blow this in run-time and no warning will be generated in compile time, here is an example:



class Foo 
 public static void main(String args) 
 Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo()).stream().sorted().forEach(f -> );



which will compile just fine but will throw an exception in runtime:



Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: Foo cannot be cast to java.lang.Comparable


What can be the reason that sorted method was not defined where compiler could actually catch such problems? Maybe I am wrong but isn 't it this simple:



interface Stream<T> 
 <C extends Comparable<T>> void sorted(C c);



?



Obviously the guys implementing this (who are light years ahead of me as far as programming and engineering is considered) must have a very good reason that I am unable to see, but what is that reason?






java java-8 java-stream comparable







share|improve this question



















  • 1




    You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 2




    It's not possible to do that.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
    – Slaw
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago















up vote
8
down vote

favorite












This is from the Stream interface from Oracles implementation of JDK 8:



public interface Stream<T> extends BaseStream<T, Stream<T>> 
 Stream<T> sorted();


and it is very easy to blow this in run-time and no warning will be generated in compile time, here is an example:



class Foo 
 public static void main(String args) 
 Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo()).stream().sorted().forEach(f -> );



which will compile just fine but will throw an exception in runtime:



Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: Foo cannot be cast to java.lang.Comparable


What can be the reason that sorted method was not defined where compiler could actually catch such problems? Maybe I am wrong but isn 't it this simple:



interface Stream<T> 
 <C extends Comparable<T>> void sorted(C c);



?



Obviously the guys implementing this (who are light years ahead of me as far as programming and engineering is considered) must have a very good reason that I am unable to see, but what is that reason?






java java-8 java-stream comparable







share|improve this question



















  • 1




    You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 2




    It's not possible to do that.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
    – Slaw
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago













up vote
8
down vote

favorite









up vote
8
down vote

favorite











This is from the Stream interface from Oracles implementation of JDK 8:



public interface Stream<T> extends BaseStream<T, Stream<T>> 
 Stream<T> sorted();


and it is very easy to blow this in run-time and no warning will be generated in compile time, here is an example:



class Foo 
 public static void main(String args) 
 Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo()).stream().sorted().forEach(f -> );



which will compile just fine but will throw an exception in runtime:



Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: Foo cannot be cast to java.lang.Comparable


What can be the reason that sorted method was not defined where compiler could actually catch such problems? Maybe I am wrong but isn 't it this simple:



interface Stream<T> 
 <C extends Comparable<T>> void sorted(C c);



?



Obviously the guys implementing this (who are light years ahead of me as far as programming and engineering is considered) must have a very good reason that I am unable to see, but what is that reason?






java java-8 java-stream comparable







share|improve this question















This is from the Stream interface from Oracles implementation of JDK 8:



public interface Stream<T> extends BaseStream<T, Stream<T>> 
 Stream<T> sorted();


and it is very easy to blow this in run-time and no warning will be generated in compile time, here is an example:



class Foo 
 public static void main(String args) 
 Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo()).stream().sorted().forEach(f -> );



which will compile just fine but will throw an exception in runtime:



Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: Foo cannot be cast to java.lang.Comparable


What can be the reason that sorted method was not defined where compiler could actually catch such problems? Maybe I am wrong but isn 't it this simple:



interface Stream<T> 
 <C extends Comparable<T>> void sorted(C c);



?



Obviously the guys implementing this (who are light years ahead of me as far as programming and engineering is considered) must have a very good reason that I am unable to see, but what is that reason?






java java-8 java-stream comparable




java java-8 java-stream comparable






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago

























asked 1 hour ago









Koray Tugay

8,11926108210




8,11926108210







  • 1




    You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 2




    It's not possible to do that.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
    – Slaw
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago













  • 1




    You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 2




    It's not possible to do that.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
    – shmosel
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
    – Slaw
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago








1




1




You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
– shmosel
1 hour ago





You mean Comparator? There's already an overload for that. Not sure why you need C though.
– shmosel
1 hour ago





2




2




It's not possible to do that.
– shmosel
1 hour ago




It's not possible to do that.
– shmosel
1 hour ago




1




1




Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
– shmosel
1 hour ago





Due to the nature of generics. The whole point of generics is that you're implementing generic functionality, which precludes type-specific logic. Your sample code doesn't make any sense. I think you're trying to redefine T (which isn't possible), but you're actually just defining a type for a useless argument.
– shmosel
1 hour ago





1




1




In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
– Slaw
1 hour ago





In your sorted example you're requiring an argument of type ? extends Comparable. Where is this argument going to come from?
– Slaw
1 hour ago





1




1




but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
– Eugene
1 hour ago





but sorted does not take any arguments as input - where are you going to take this argument from?
– Eugene
1 hour ago













2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










How would you implement that? sorted is a intermediate operation (can be called anywhere between other intermediate operations), meaning you can start with a stream that is not Comparable, but call sorted on one that is Comparable:



Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo())
 .stream()
 .map(Foo::getName) // name is a String for example
 .sorted()
 .forEach(f -> );


The thing that you are proposing takes an argument as input, but Stream::sorted does not, so you can't do that. The overload version accepts a Comparator - meaning you can sort something by a property, but still return Stream<T>. I think that this is quite easy to understand if you would try to write your minimal skeleton of a Stream interface/implementation.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • @KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago

















up vote
5
down vote













The documentation for Stream#sorted explains it perfectly:




Returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, sorted according to natural order. If the elements of this stream are not Comparable, a java.lang.ClassCastException may be thrown when the terminal operation is executed.




You're using the overloaded method that accepts no arguments (not the one that accepts a Comparator), and Foo does not implement Comparable.



If you're asking why the method doesn't throw a compiler error if the contents of the Stream do not implement Comparable, it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable, and T cannot be changed without a call to Stream#map; it seems to only be a convenience method so no explicit Comparator needs to be provided when the elements already implement Comparable.



For it to be type-safe, T would have to extend Comparable, but that would be ridiculous, as it would prevent a stream from containing any objects that aren't Comparable.






share|improve this answer






















  • it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
    – user7
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53219523%2fwhy-is-the-stream-sorted-not-type-safe-in-java-8%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










How would you implement that? sorted is a intermediate operation (can be called anywhere between other intermediate operations), meaning you can start with a stream that is not Comparable, but call sorted on one that is Comparable:



Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo())
 .stream()
 .map(Foo::getName) // name is a String for example
 .sorted()
 .forEach(f -> );


The thing that you are proposing takes an argument as input, but Stream::sorted does not, so you can't do that. The overload version accepts a Comparator - meaning you can sort something by a property, but still return Stream<T>. I think that this is quite easy to understand if you would try to write your minimal skeleton of a Stream interface/implementation.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • @KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago














up vote
3
down vote



accepted










How would you implement that? sorted is a intermediate operation (can be called anywhere between other intermediate operations), meaning you can start with a stream that is not Comparable, but call sorted on one that is Comparable:



Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo())
 .stream()
 .map(Foo::getName) // name is a String for example
 .sorted()
 .forEach(f -> );


The thing that you are proposing takes an argument as input, but Stream::sorted does not, so you can't do that. The overload version accepts a Comparator - meaning you can sort something by a property, but still return Stream<T>. I think that this is quite easy to understand if you would try to write your minimal skeleton of a Stream interface/implementation.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • @KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago












up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






How would you implement that? sorted is a intermediate operation (can be called anywhere between other intermediate operations), meaning you can start with a stream that is not Comparable, but call sorted on one that is Comparable:



Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo())
 .stream()
 .map(Foo::getName) // name is a String for example
 .sorted()
 .forEach(f -> );


The thing that you are proposing takes an argument as input, but Stream::sorted does not, so you can't do that. The overload version accepts a Comparator - meaning you can sort something by a property, but still return Stream<T>. I think that this is quite easy to understand if you would try to write your minimal skeleton of a Stream interface/implementation.






share|improve this answer














How would you implement that? sorted is a intermediate operation (can be called anywhere between other intermediate operations), meaning you can start with a stream that is not Comparable, but call sorted on one that is Comparable:



Arrays.asList(new Foo(), new Foo())
 .stream()
 .map(Foo::getName) // name is a String for example
 .sorted()
 .forEach(f -> );


The thing that you are proposing takes an argument as input, but Stream::sorted does not, so you can't do that. The overload version accepts a Comparator - meaning you can sort something by a property, but still return Stream<T>. I think that this is quite easy to understand if you would try to write your minimal skeleton of a Stream interface/implementation.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Eugene

65.8k992156




65.8k992156







  • 1




    Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • @KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • @KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
    – Eugene
    1 hour ago







1




1




Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago




Well sorted in this example knows the type again, that is a Stream<String>, isn 't it?
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago












@KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
– Eugene
1 hour ago




@KorayTugay well yes, what is your point?
– Eugene
1 hour ago












up vote
5
down vote













The documentation for Stream#sorted explains it perfectly:




Returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, sorted according to natural order. If the elements of this stream are not Comparable, a java.lang.ClassCastException may be thrown when the terminal operation is executed.




You're using the overloaded method that accepts no arguments (not the one that accepts a Comparator), and Foo does not implement Comparable.



If you're asking why the method doesn't throw a compiler error if the contents of the Stream do not implement Comparable, it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable, and T cannot be changed without a call to Stream#map; it seems to only be a convenience method so no explicit Comparator needs to be provided when the elements already implement Comparable.



For it to be type-safe, T would have to extend Comparable, but that would be ridiculous, as it would prevent a stream from containing any objects that aren't Comparable.






share|improve this answer






















  • it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
    – user7
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago














up vote
5
down vote













The documentation for Stream#sorted explains it perfectly:




Returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, sorted according to natural order. If the elements of this stream are not Comparable, a java.lang.ClassCastException may be thrown when the terminal operation is executed.




You're using the overloaded method that accepts no arguments (not the one that accepts a Comparator), and Foo does not implement Comparable.



If you're asking why the method doesn't throw a compiler error if the contents of the Stream do not implement Comparable, it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable, and T cannot be changed without a call to Stream#map; it seems to only be a convenience method so no explicit Comparator needs to be provided when the elements already implement Comparable.



For it to be type-safe, T would have to extend Comparable, but that would be ridiculous, as it would prevent a stream from containing any objects that aren't Comparable.






share|improve this answer






















  • it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
    – user7
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









The documentation for Stream#sorted explains it perfectly:




Returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, sorted according to natural order. If the elements of this stream are not Comparable, a java.lang.ClassCastException may be thrown when the terminal operation is executed.




You're using the overloaded method that accepts no arguments (not the one that accepts a Comparator), and Foo does not implement Comparable.



If you're asking why the method doesn't throw a compiler error if the contents of the Stream do not implement Comparable, it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable, and T cannot be changed without a call to Stream#map; it seems to only be a convenience method so no explicit Comparator needs to be provided when the elements already implement Comparable.



For it to be type-safe, T would have to extend Comparable, but that would be ridiculous, as it would prevent a stream from containing any objects that aren't Comparable.






share|improve this answer














The documentation for Stream#sorted explains it perfectly:




Returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, sorted according to natural order. If the elements of this stream are not Comparable, a java.lang.ClassCastException may be thrown when the terminal operation is executed.




You're using the overloaded method that accepts no arguments (not the one that accepts a Comparator), and Foo does not implement Comparable.



If you're asking why the method doesn't throw a compiler error if the contents of the Stream do not implement Comparable, it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable, and T cannot be changed without a call to Stream#map; it seems to only be a convenience method so no explicit Comparator needs to be provided when the elements already implement Comparable.



For it to be type-safe, T would have to extend Comparable, but that would be ridiculous, as it would prevent a stream from containing any objects that aren't Comparable.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Jacob G.

13.8k41859




13.8k41859











  • it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
    – user7
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago
















  • it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago










  • There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
    – user7
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
    – Jacob G.
    1 hour ago










  • @user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
    – Koray Tugay
    1 hour ago















it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago




it would be because T is not forced to extend Comparable I know, but why does sorted accept a T but not something like what I suggest at the end of my question?
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago












There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
– Jacob G.
1 hour ago




There's already an overloaded Stream#sorted method that accepts a Comparator. It accepting a Comparable wouldn't make much sense.
– Jacob G.
1 hour ago












I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
– user7
1 hour ago




I guess the point you are trying to make is that since sorted is part of the Stream class (which has type parameter T) T should not implement Comparable as that will force all types using the stream pipeline to implement Comparable.
– user7
1 hour ago












@user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
– Jacob G.
1 hour ago




@user7 Exactly :) which is why the documentation states "sorted according to natural order". Objects that don't implement Comparable don't have a natural order.
– Jacob G.
1 hour ago












@user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago




@user7 Yes, obviously that would be a disaster.. But can we not just define a method parameters type to be of generic type of the interface AND restrict it to also something else? (That is what I tried in the last code snipped in my question, at least I tried to..)
– Koray Tugay
1 hour ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53219523%2fwhy-is-the-stream-sorted-not-type-safe-in-java-8%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
Read more

One-line joke

A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
Read more