javac之Inferring Type Arguments Based on Actual Arguments

最新推荐文章于 2024-09-11 10:18:36 发布

dengzhao3993

最新推荐文章于 2024-09-11 10:18:36 发布

阅读量205

点赞数

原文链接：http://www.cnblogs.com/extjs4/p/7456915.html

版权

We use the following notational conventions in this section:

Type expressions are represented using the letters A, F, U, V, and W. The letter A is only used to denote the type of an actual argument, and F is only used to denote the type of a formal parameter.
Type parameters are represented using the letters S and T
Arguments to parameterized types are represented using the letters X and Y.
Generic type declarations are represented using the letters G and H.

Inference begins with a set of initial constraints of the form A << F, A = F, or A >> F, where U << V indicates that type U is convertible to type V by method invocation conversion (§5.3), and U >> V indicates that type V is convertible to type U by method invocation conversion.

These constraints are then reduced to a set of simpler constraints of the forms T :> X, T = X, or T <: X, where T is a type parameter of the method. This reduction is achieved by the procedure given below.

Given a constraint of the form A << F, A = F, or A >> F:

If F does not involve a type parameter T_j then no constraint is implied on T_j.

e.g

public <T extends InputStream> void test1(String a) { ... }

Otherwise, F involves a type parameter T_j, and there are four cases to consider.

1. If A is the type of null, no constraint is implied on T_j.

2. Otherwise, if the constraint has the form A << F:

3. Otherwise, if the constraint has the form A = F:

4. Otherwise, if the constraint has the form A >> F:

1、the constraint has the form A << F

If A is a primitive type, then A is converted to a reference type U via boxing conversion and this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint U << F.

If A is Reference type ,than:

if F = T_j, then the constraint T_j :> A is implied.
If F = U[], where the type U involves T_j, then if A is an array type V[], or a type variable with an upper bound that is an array type V[], where V is a reference type, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V << U.

This follows from the covariant subtype relation among array types. The constraint A << F in this case means that A << U[]. A is therefore necessarily an array type V[], or a type variable whose upper bound is an array type V[] - otherwise the relation A << U[] could never hold true. It follows that V[] << U[]. Since array subtyping is covariant, it must be the case that V << U.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U is a type expression that involves T_j, then if A has a supertype of the form G<..., X_k-1, V, X_k+1, ...> where V is a type expression, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V = U.

For simplicity, assume that G takes a single type argument. If the method invocation being examined is to be applicable, it must be the case that A is a subtype of some invocation of G. Otherwise, A << F would never be true.

In other words, A << F, where F = G<U>, implies that A << G<V> for some V. Now, since U is a type expression (and therefore[因此，所以], U is not a wildcard type argument), it must be the case that U = V, by the non-variance of ordinary parameterized type invocations.

The formulation above merely generalizes this reasoning to generics with an arbitrary number of type arguments.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? extends U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U involves T_j, then if A has a supertype that is one of:
- G<..., X_k-1, V, X_k+1, ...>, where V is a type expression. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V << U.
  
  Again, let's keep things as simple as possible, and consider only the case where G has a single type argument.
  
  A << F in this case means A << G<? extends U>. As above, it must be the case that A is a subtype of some invocation of G. However, A may now be a subtype of either G<V>, or G<? extends V>, or G<? super V>. We examine these cases in turn. The first variation is described (generalized to multiple arguments) by the sub-bullet directly above. We therefore have A = G<V> << G<? extends U>. The rules of subtyping for wildcards imply that V << U.
- G<..., X_k-1, ? extends V, X_k+1, ...>. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V << U.
  
  Extending the analysis above, we have A = G<? extends V> << G<? extends U>. The rules of subtyping for wildcards again imply that V << U.
- Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
  
  Here, we have A = G<? super V> << G<? extends U>. In general, we cannot conclude anything in this case. However, it is not necessarily an error. It may be that U will eventually be inferred to be Object, in which case the call may indeed be valid. Therefore, we simply refrain[避免，节制] from placing any constraint on U.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? super U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U involves T_j, then if A has a supertype that is one of:
- G<..., X_k-1, V, X_k+1, ...>. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V >> U.
  
  As usual, we consider only the case where G has a single type argument.
  
  A << F in this case means A << G<? super U>. As above, it must be the case that A is a subtype of some invocation of G. A may now be a subtype of either G<V>, or G<? extendsV>, or G<? super V>. We examine these cases in turn. The first variation is described (generalized to multiple arguments) by the sub-bullet directly above. We therefore have A = G<V> << G<? super U>. The rules of subtyping for wildcards imply that V >> U.
- G<..., X_k-1, ? super V, X_k+1, ...>. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V >> U.
  
  We have A = G<? super V> << G<? super U>. The rules of subtyping for lower-bounded wildcards again imply that V >> U.
- Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
  
  Here, we have A = G<? extends V> << G<? super U>. In general, we cannot conclude anything in this case. However, it is not necessarily an error. It may be that U will eventually be inferred to the null type, in which case the call may indeed be valid. Therefore, we simply refrain from placing any constraint on U.
Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.

e.g

class A<U> { }

public class Test {

	public <T extends Number> void test(
										T a,
										T[] b,
										A<T> c,
										A<? extends T> d,
										A<? super T> e) {

	}
	

	
	public void tt(){
		int a = 2;
		// int[] b = new int[]{2,4};
		Integer[] b = new Integer[]{1,2,3};
		A<Integer> c = new A<Integer>();
		A<Integer> d = new A<Integer>();
		A<Integer> e = new A<Integer>();
		
		test(a,b,c,d,e);
	}
}

2、the constraint has the form A == F

If F = T_j, then the constraint T_j = A is implied.
If F = U[] where the type U involves T_j, then if A is an array type V[], or a type variable with an upper bound that is an array type V[], where V is a reference type, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V = U.

If the array types U[] and V[] are the same, their component types must be the same.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U is type expression that involves T_j, then if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, V, X_k+1,...> where V is a type expression, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V = U.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? extends U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U involves T_j, then if A is one of:
- G<..., X_k-1, ? extends V, X_k+1, ...>. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V = U.
- Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? super U, Y_k+1 ,...>, where U involves T_j, then if A is one of:
- G<..., X_k-1, ? super V, X_k+1, ...>. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V = U.
- Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.

3、the constraint has the form A >> F

If F = T_j, then the constraint T_j <: A is implied.

We do not make use of such constraints in the main body of the inference algorithm. However, they are used in §15.12.2.8.
If F = U[], where the type U involves T_j, then if A is an array type V[], or a type variable with an upper bound that is an array type V[], where V is a reference type, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint V >> U. Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.

This follows from the covariant subtype relation among array types. The constraint A >> F in this case means that A >> U[]. A is therefore necessarily an array type V[], or a type variable whose upper bound is an array type V[] - otherwise the relation A >> U[] could never hold true. It follows that V[] >> U[]. Since array subtyping is covariant, it must be the case that V >> U.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U is a type expression that involves T_j, then:
- If A is an instance of a non-generic type, then no constraint is implied on T_j.
  
  In this case (once again restricting the analysis to the unary case), we have the constraint A >> F = G<U>. A must be a supertype of the generic type G. However, since A is not a parameterized type, it cannot depend upon the type argument U in any way. It is a supertype of G<X> for every X that is a valid type argument to G. No meaningful constraint on Ucan be derived from A.
- If A is an invocation of a generic type declaration H, where H is either G or superclass or superinterface of G, then:
  - If H ≠ G, then let S₁, ..., S_n be the type parameters of G, and let H<U₁, ..., U_l> be the unique invocation of H that is a supertype of G<S₁, ..., S_n>, and let V = H<U₁, ..., U_l>[S_k=U]. Then, if V :> F this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint A >> V.
    
    Our goal here is to simplify the relationship between A and F. We aim to recursively invoke the algorithm on a simpler case, where the type argument is known to be an invocation of the same generic type declaration as the formal.
    
    Let's consider the case where both H and G have only a single type argument. Since we have the constraint A = H<X> >> F = G<U>, where H is distinct from G, it must be the case that H is some proper superclass or superinterface of G. There must be a (non-wildcard) invocation of H that is a supertype of F = G<U>. Call this invocation V.
    
    If we replace F by V in the constraint, we will have accomplished the goal of relating two invocations of the same generic (as it happens, H).
    
    How do we compute V? The declaration of G must introduce a type parameter S, and there must be some (non-wildcard) invocation of H, H<U₁>, that is a supertype of G<S>. Substituting the type expression U for S will then yield a (non-wildcard) invocation of H, H<U₁>[S=U], that is a supertype of G<U>. For example, in the simplest instance, U₁might be S, in which case we have G<S> <: H<S>, and G<U> <: H<U> = H<S>[S=U] = V.
    
    It may be the case that H<U₁> is independent of S - that is, S does not occur in U₁ at all. However, the substitution described above is still valid - in this situation, V = H<U₁>[S=U] = H<U₁>. Furthermore, in this circumstance, G<T> <: H<U₁> for any T, and in particular G<U> <: H<U₁> = V.
    
    Regardless of whether U₁ depends on S, we have determined the type V, the invocation of H that is a supertype of G<U>. We can now invoke the algorithm recursively on the constraint H<X> = A >> V = H<U₁>[S=U]. We will then be able to relate the type arguments of both invocations of H and extract the relevant constraints from them.
  - Otherwise, if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, W, X_k+1, ...>, where W is a type expression, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint W = U.
    
    We have A = G<W> >> F = G<U> for some type expression W. Since W is a type expression (and not a wildcard type argument), it must be the case that W = U, by the invariance of parameterized types.
  - Otherwise, if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, ? extends W, X_k+1, ...>, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint W >> U.
    
    We have A = G<? extends W> >> F = G<U> for some type expression W. It must be the case that W >> U, by the subtyping rules for wildcard types.
  - Otherwise, if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, ? super W, X_k+1, ...>, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint W << U.
    
    We have A = G<? super W> >> F = G<U> for some type expression W. It must be the case that W << U, by the subtyping rules for wildcard types.
  - Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? extends U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U is a type expression that involves T_j, then:
- If A is an instance of a non-generic type, then no constraint is implied on T_j.
  
  Once again restricting the analysis to the unary case, we have the constraint A >> F = G<? extends U>. A must be a supertype of the generic type G. However, since A is not a parameterized type, it cannot depend upon U in any way. It is a supertype of the type G<? extends X> for every X such that ? extends X is a valid type argument to G. No meaningful constraint on U can be derived from A.
- If A is an invocation of a generic type declaration H, where H is either G or superclass or superinterface of G, then:
  - If H ≠ G, then let S₁, ..., S_n be the type parameters of G, and let H<U₁, ..., U_l> be the unique invocation of H that is a supertype of G<S₁, ..., S_n>, and let V = H<? extends U₁, ..., ? extends U_l>[S_k=U]. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint A >> V.
    
    Our goal here is once more to simplify the relationship between A and F, and recursively invoke the algorithm on a simpler case, where the type argument is known to be an invocation of the same generic type as the formal.
    
    Assume both H and G have only a single type argument. Since we have the constraint A = H<X> >> F = G<? extends U>, where H is distinct from G, it must be the case that His some proper superclass or superinterface of G. There must be an invocation of H<Y>, such that H<X> >> H<Y>, that we can use instead of F = G<? extends U>.
    
    How do we compute H<Y>? As before, note that the declaration of G must introduce a type parameter S, and there must be some (non-wildcard) invocation of H, H<U₁>, that is a supertype of G<S>. However, substituting ? extends U for S is not generally valid. To see this, assume U₁ = T[].
    
    Instead, we produce an invocation of H, H<? extends U₁>[S=U]. In the simplest instance, U₁ might be S, in which case we have G<S> <: H<S>, and G<? extends U> <: H<?extends U> = H<? extends S>[S=U] = V.
  - Otherwise, if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, ? extends W, X_k+1, ...>, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint W >> U.
    
    We have A = G<? extends W> >> F = G<? extends U> for some type expression W. By the subtyping rules for wildcards it must be the case that W >> U.
  - Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.
If F has the form G<..., Y_k-1, ? super U, Y_k+1, ...>, where U is a type expression that involves T_j, then A is either:
- If A is an instance of a non-generic type, then no constraint is implied on T_j.
  
  Restricting the analysis to the unary case, we have the constraint A >> F = G<? super U>. A must be a supertype of the generic type G. However, since A is not a parameterized type, it cannot depend upon U in any way. It is a supertype of the type G<? super X> for every X such that ? super X is a valid type argument to G. No meaningful constraint on Ucan be derived from A.
- If A is an invocation of a generic type declaration H, where H is either G or superclass or superinterface of G, then:
  - If H ≠ G, then let S₁, ..., S_n be the type parameters of G, and let H<U₁, ..., U_l> be the unique invocation of H that is a supertype of G<S₁, ..., S_n>, and let V = H<? super U₁, ..., ? super U_l>[S_k=U]. Then this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint A >> V.
    
    The treatment here is analogous to the case where A = G<? extends U>. Here our example would produce an invocation H<? super U₁>[S=U].
  - Otherwise, if A is of the form G<..., X_k-1, ? super W, ..., X_k+1, ...>, this algorithm is applied recursively to the constraint W << U.
    
    We have A = G<? super W> >> F = G<? super U> for some type expression W. It must be the case that W << U, by the subtyping rules for wildcard types.
  - Otherwise, no constraint is implied on T_j.