Raw types, unbounded wilcard and bounded wildcard?

If I understand your question correctly (and I really don't think I do), there appear to be two instances in which interaction with raw types could cause an unchecked warning to occur, according to this page.

If I understand your question correctly (and I really don't think I do), there appear to be two instances in which interaction with raw types could cause an unchecked warning to occur, according to this page: An invocation of a method or constructor of a raw type generates an unchecked warning if erasure changes any of the types of any of the arguments to the method or constructor. An assignment to a field of a raw type generates an unchecked warning (§5.1.9) if erasure changes the field's type. So the answer to your question basically seems to be "erasure could result in unchecked warnings in the presence of raw types".

As far as I can tell, this is most likely to occur when nested types are used - I can't see anywhere else in the definition of erasure that would likely cause a type to change, but perhaps someone else can suggest whether that is or isn't the source of this.

Thanks for your reply. Sorry for confusion. Please see my text again.

– Kim Ming Yap Aug 16 '10 at 1:32.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.