but then you choose for it (you really have to make a choice what kind of object you put in it) thats not the case if it wasn't there.
Also we could make it so that it was really 1 way of doing so object.getClass() == getClass() then even that wouldn't work. But that just annoys i guess. johan On 10/23/07, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:55, Johan Compagner wrote: > > > yes thats the exception. But still <T> is not really a substitute > > for the > > Class object > > Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want > > and currently you will get an exception.. > > > > But i guess it cleans up the api so that will be a break if nobody > > objects., > > > > Well a user could still pass in Object.class if they wanted - just > like they could decide to ignore the generic type. I don't see the > functional difference. >
