Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> Pelle's point still stands.
>
> a[0] = new A();
>
> would be legal code if you could assign a B[] to an A[], and since an A isn't
> necessarily a B, that doesn't work at all. If the underlying type were
> actually
> A[], then it would be fine to use varying types derived from A, but since the
> underlying type would actually be B[], it would break B[] to put anything in
> it
> which wasn't a B or a type derived from B.
Ok, then let us actually test that and show it is valid[1]:
class A {}
class B:A {}
void main() {
A[] a = new B[6];
a[0] = new A();
}
1. http://ideone.com/5sUZt
I have shown that what I am talking about is valid for Arrays (a container) but
not templates. The issues of actually implementing it is not related to what I
was replying to. I introduced it as a benefit to forgetting type information in
"generics." I was then told "Having a container of one type should not be
castable to a container of
another type." So I am pointing out we need to remove this feature from arrays
right now!
