Re: Generic Collection

[andrew <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu>]

On May 11, 3:10 am, Georg Bauhaus <bauh...@futureapps.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 15:48 -0700, andrew wrote:
> > On May 10, 2:31 pm, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > So, I'm thinking that many of the "capabilities" or operations I
> > > > desire of the collection would have to be "dispatching" to the type of
> > > > the collection object.
>
> When is the type of the collection object determined? How?
The statement I made may be misleading.  It's not dispatching on the
type of the collection object but on the type of the object stored in
the collection.  Does that make better sense?


>
> > > Do you want to be able to add attributes to schemas? I would have
> > > thought not ..
>
> This is an important question, if not the important question.
> I'd try to answer it first.
It's irrelevant at this time.

> If you want a collection that doesn't collect either Apples
> or Oranges, but instead is capable of holding Apples, Oranges,
> Cabbage, Motor_Oil, Whatever, you can have that, too. Is this
> what you want?
Yes, but I wouldn't really be storing apples, oranges, cabbage, ... I
would be storing a common object type like "Object".  Right?


> > I don't understand why I would have run-time errors.  Please expand
> > that thought.
>
> Just think of the consequences of Java pre-1.5 collections delivering
> nothing but Object objects.
There was a problem with delivering objects of type Object?