6

I tried to write the following:

public class AdjacencyList<Vertex> {

    Map<Vertex, Set<Edge<Vertex>>> adj = new HashMap<Vertex, HashSet<Edge<Vertex>>>();
}

But I get the error:

Type mismatch: cannot convert from HashMap<Vertex,HashSet<Edge<Vertex>>> to Map<Vertex,Set<Edge<Vertex>>>

Eclipse wants me to change the line to:

Map<Vertex, HashSet<Edge<Vertex>>> adj = new HashMap<Vertex, HashSet<Edge<Vertex>>>();

(Note it's specifying the type of Set on the left.

I'm trying to get into the habit of specifying interfaces instead of exact types. Why is it not letting me in this case?

  • IIRC the terms you should google are covariance and contravariance. In short words, List<String> is not an instance/subclass of List<Object> because if it were then issues arise from using the generic type instance as parameters or return types. – SJuan76 Jul 12 '15 at 19:40
9

I believe that unless specifically specified, generics in Java are invariant, meaning that (to simplify), a List<string> does not inherit from List<Object>, even though String does inherit Object. Consider that a List<Object> has an add(Object o) method, which, if it was inherited by List<String>, be used to add non-Strings to the list and break the very type safety that generics are here to provide us. Similarly, a Map<Vertex,Set<...>> isn't the base class of a Map<Vertex, HashSet<...>>, even though Set is of HashSet.

Try reading this article on Covariance and Contravariance in Java, which explains this issue in general terms, and shows how to use Generic Bounds to extend the possible generic arguments of a type:

Unbounded wildcards allow assignment with any type parameter:

List<?> list = new ArrayList<Clazz>();

Bounded wildcards affect assignment like you might expect:

List<? extends Clazz> list = new ArrayList<SubClazz>();
List<? super Clazz> list2 = new ArrayList<Object>();
| improve this answer | |
  • So should I change the declaration to use bounded wildcard like your last example, or leave it as Eclipse suggested? – Carcigenicate Jul 12 '15 at 19:55
  • Doesn't really matter. If this was a simple case, I'd say go with whatever looks nicer to you. Since this is a complex declaration and I don't even know how easy it would be to define bounded wildcards for multiple levels of generic nesting, I'd just stay with Eclipse's suggestion. – Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jul 12 '15 at 19:57
  • Might be clearer to comment that a HashSet is a type (or implementation) of Set... – h.j.k. Jul 13 '15 at 2:15
1

Make what you're instantiating concrete (HashMap), but keep the generic type abstract. Something like:

Map<Vertex, Set<Edge<Vertex>>> adj = new HashMap<Vertex, Set<Edge<Vertex>>>();

adj.put(new Vertex(), new HashSet<Edge<Vertex>>());

Note that this will allow other types of Set to be used as values in the Map, which may or may not be what you intend. If you only want HashSets in the Map, then Eclipse's suggestion would be the way to go.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.