We Keep Coding

What is the purpose of additional diamond parameters in a method signature (that look like an additional return type(s))? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What does the type parameter <T> in the method definition mean? [duplicate]
(1 answer)
What are Generics in Java? [closed]
(3 answers)
Java Generics: Generic type defined as return type only
(6 answers)
Understanding generic parameters with void return types
(5 answers)
Closed 10 months ago.
I have the following class which builds:
public class Test<T> {
public T DoSomething(T value) {
return value;
}
}
I can also define it like this class like this (notice the extra in the DoSomething signature (which also builds):
public class Test<T> {
public <T> T DoSomething(T value) {
return value;
}
}
What is its purpose and when do I need to include it? I am asking about the additional <T> in the return type, not what generics are.

Maybe this will clear it up. The notation <T> declares a type variable.
So we have one variable T at the class level, and a redeclaration of that same symbol for a particular method.
class Test<T> {
<T> T doSomething(T value) {
// <T> declares a new type variable for this one method
System.out.println("Type of value: " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
return value;
}
T doSomethingElse(T value) {
// T is not redeclared here, thus is the type from the class declaration
System.out.println("Type of value: " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
return value;
}
public static void main(String... a) {
Test<String> t = new Test<>();
t.doSomething(42);
t.doSomething("foo"); // also works
t.doSomething(t); // contrived, but still works
t.doSomethingElse("hi");
t.doSomethingElse(42); // errors because the type `T` is bound to `String` by the declaration `Test<String> t`
}
}
In main, I create a Test<String> so the class-level T is String. This applies to my method doSomethingElse.
But for doSomething, T is redeclared. If I call the method with an Integer arg, then T for that case is Integer.
Really, it would have been better to call the second type variable anything else at all, on the declaration of doSomething. U, for example.
(In most cases, I actually favour giving useful names to type variables, not just single letters).

The concept is known as a generic method (docs.oracle.com).
In the code presented, we have an especially tricky case of generics since we have two generic parameters with the same name:
the <T> on the class-level: public class Test<T>, and
the <T> on the method-level: public <T> T DoSomething(T value)
The latter hides the former within the scope of the method DoSomething(...), just like a local variable would hide an instance field with the same name. In general, I would advice against this type of "hiding" since it makes the code harder to read and understand. Thus, for the rest of the discussion we will work with this (slightly modified) version of the code:
public class Test<T> {
public T doSomethingWithT(T t) {
return t;
}
public <U> U doSomethingWithU(U u) {
return u;
}
}
The scope of the class-level generic parameter T is for the whole class, while the scope of the method-level generic parameter U is only for the one method it is delared on. This will lead to the following observation:
// T is bound to type String for the instance testString:
final Test<String> testString = new Test<>();
final String tString = testString.doSomethingWithT("Hello");
System.out.println(tString); // prints "Hello"
// will not compile since 1 is not a String:
// int tInt = testString.doSomethingWithT(1);
// For this one invocation of doSomethingWithU(...), U is bound to
// type String:
final String uString = testString.doSomethingWithU("World!");
System.out.println(uString); // prints "World!"
// for this one invocation of doSomethingWithU(...), U is bound to
// type Integer:
final int uInt = testString.doSomethingWithU(1);
System.out.println(uInt); // prints "1"
Ideone demo
Notice that, although doSomethingWithU(...) is a generic method, we did not have to specify the generic parameter, the compiler inferred the type for us. While seldom used, we can also explicitly specify the generic parameter for thie method:
final Test<String> testString = new Test<>();
final Number number = testString.<Number>doSomethingWithU(1);
System.out.println(number);
Ideone demo
(In this example, the explicit generic parameter is not necessary, the code works without it aswell, but there are rare cases where this may be useful or even necessary.)
The following is not strictly necessary to understand generic methods, but more of a curiosity one might find in code and is meant to prime the reader that it is bad practice, should not be used and removed when seen.
It should also be mentioned that the JLS allows us to add generic method parameters on method invocations that do not have any generic parameter. Those parameter do not have any effect:
Object o = new Object();
// Method "hashCode()" on "Object" has not generic parameters, one
// can "add" one to the method invocation, it has no effect on the
// semantics, however
int hash = o.<String>hashCode();
Ideone demo
A remark on the code: In Java, methods should be written in camelCase instead of CamelCase (DoSomething(...) -> doSomething(...))

How to define a method with Integer parameter (path placeholding)?

Preface
I'd like to saying two things:
I don't know how to phrase this question in a few words. So I can't find what I'm looking for when searching (on stackoverflow). Essentially, I apologize if this is a duplicate.
I've only been programming Java consistently for a month or so. So I apologize if I asked an obvious question.
Question
I would like to have a method with a parameter that holds (path to) an integer.
How is such a method implemented in Java code?
Restrictions
The parameter should be generic.
So, when there are multiple of that integer variables, the correct one can be used as argument to the method, when it is called (at runtime).
My Idea as Pseudo-Code
Here's the idea of what I want (in pseudo-code). The idea basically consist of 3 parts:
the method with parameter
the variables holding integer values
the calls of the method with concrete values
(A) Method
.
Following is the definition of my method named hey with generic parameter named pathToAnyInteger of type genericPathToInt:
class main {
method hey(genericPathToInt pathToAnyInteger) {
System.out.println(pathToAnyInteger);
}
}
(B) Multiple Integer Variables
Following are the multiple integer variables (e.g. A and B; each holding an integer):
class A {
myInt = 2;
}
class B {
myInt = 8;
}
(C) Method-calls at runtime
Following is my main-method that gets executed when the program runs. So at runtime the (1) previously defined method hey is called using (2) each of the variables that are holding the different integer values:
class declare {
main() {
hey("hey " + A.myInt);
hey("hey " + B.myInt);
}
}
Expected output
//output
hey 2
hey 8
Personal Remark
Again, sorry if this is a duplicate, and sorry if this is a stupid question. If you need further clarification, I'd be willing to help. Any help is appreciated. And hey, if you're going to be unkind (mostly insults, but implied tone too) in your answer, don't answer, even if you have the solution. Your help isn't wanted. Thanks! :)

Java (since Java 8) contains elements of functional programing which allows for something similiar to what you are looking for. Your hey method could look like this:
void hey(Supplier<Integer> integerSupplier) {
System.out.printl("Hey" + integerSupplier.get());
}
This method declares a parameter that can be "a method call that will return an Integer".
You can call this method and pass it a so called lambda expression, like this:
hey(() -> myObject.getInt());
Or, in some cases, you can use a so called method referrence like :
Hey(myObject::getInt)
In this case both would mean "call the hey method and when it needs an integer, call getInt to retrieve it". The lambda expression would also allow you to reference a field directly, but having fields exposed is considered a bad practise.

If i understood your question correctly, you need to use inheritance to achive what you are looking for.
let's start with creating a hierarchy:
class SuperInteger {
int val;
//additional attributes that you would need.
public SuperInteger(int val) {
this.val = val;
}
public void printValue() {
System.out.println("The Value is :"+this.value);
}
}
class SubIntA extends SuperInteger {
//this inherits "val" and you can add additional unique attributes/behavior to it
public SubIntA(int val) {
super(val);
}
#override
public void printValue() {
System.out.println("A Value is :"+this.value);
}
}
class SubIntB extends SuperInteger {
//this inherits "val" and you can add additional unique attributes/behavior to it
public SubIntB(int val) {
super(val);
}
#override
public void printValue() {
System.out.println("B Value is :"+this.value);
}
}
Now you method Signature can be accepting and parameter of type SuperInteger and while calling the method, you can be passing SubIntA/SuperInteger/SubIntB because Java Implicitly Upcasts for you.
so:
public void testMethod(SuperInteger abc) {
a.val = 3;
a.printValue();
}
can be called from main using:
public static void main(String args[]){
testMethod(new SubIntA(0));
testMethod(new SubIntB(1));
testMethod(new SuperInteger(2));
}
getting an Output like:
A Value is :3
B Value is :3
The Value is :3

Integers in Java are primitive types, which are passed by value. So you don't really pass the "path" to the integer, you pass the actual value. Objects, on the other hand, are passed by reference.
Your pseudo-code would work in Java with a few modifications. The code assumes all classes are in the same package, otherwise you would need to make everything public (or another access modifier depending on the use case).
// First letter of a class name should be uppercase
class MainClass {
// the method takes one parameter of type integer, who we will call inputInteger
// (method-scoped only)
static void hey(int inputInteger) {
System.out.println("hey " + inputInteger);
}
}
class A {
// instance variable
int myInt = 2;
}
class B {
// instance variable
int myInt = 8;
}
class Declare {
public static void main() {
// Instantiate instances of A and B classes
A aObject = new A();
B bObject = new B();
// call the static method
MainClass.hey(aObject.myInt);
MainClass.hey(bObject.myInt);
}
}
//output
hey 2
hey 8
This code first defines the class MainClass, which contains your method hey. I made the method static in order to be able to just call it as MainClass.hey(). If it was not static, you would need to instantiate a MainClass object in the Declare class and then call the method on that object. For example:
...
MainClass mainClassObject = new MainClass();
mainClassObject.hey(aObject.myInt);
...

Java 8 streams, why does this compile part 2... Or what is a method reference, really?

OK, the first question in this "series" was this one.
Now, here is another case:
Arrays.asList("hello", "world").stream().forEach(System.out::println);
This compiles, and works...
OK, in the last question, static methods from a class were used.
But now this is different: System.out is a static field of System, yes; it is also a PrintStream, and a PrintStream has a println() method which happens to match the signature of a Consumer in this case, and a Consumer is what forEach() expects.
So I tried this...
public final class Main
{
public static void main(final String... args)
{
Arrays.asList(23, 2389, 19).stream().forEach(new Main()::meh);
}
// Matches the signature of a Consumer<? super Integer>...
public void meh(final Integer ignored)
{
System.out.println("meh");
}
}
And it works!
This is quite a different scope here, since I initiate a new instance and can use a method reference right after this instance is constructed!
So, is a method reference really any method which obeys the signature? What are the limits? Are there any cases where one can build a "#FunctionalInterface compatible" method which cannot be used in a #FunctionalInterface?

The syntax of method references is defined in JLS #15.13. In particular it can be of the form:
Primary :: [TypeArguments] Identifier
Where Primary can be, among other things, a:
ClassInstanceCreationExpression
so yes, your syntax is correct. A few other interesting examples:
this::someInstanceMethod // (...) -> this.someInstanceMethod(...)
"123"::equals // (s) -> "123".equals(s)
(b ? "123" : "456")::equals // where b is a boolean
array[1]::length // (String[] array) -> array[1].length()
String[]::new // i -> new String[i]
a.b()::c // (...) -> a.b().c(...)
By the way, since you mention static methods, it is interesting to note that you can't create a static method reference from an instance:
class Static { static void m() {} }
Static s = new Static();
s.m(); //compiles
someStream.forEach(s::m); //does not compile
someStream.forEach(Static::m); //that's ok

From the State of Lambda
Kinds of method references
There are several different kinds of method references, each with
slightly different syntax:
A static method (ClassName::methName)
An instance method of a particular object (instanceRef::methName)
A super method of a particular object (super::methName)
An instance method of an arbitrary object of a particular type (ClassName::methName)
A class constructor reference (ClassName::new)
An array constructor reference (TypeName[]::new)

Saying this:
something(new Main()::meh);
Is approximately equivalent to saying this:
Main x = new Main();
something(() -> x.meh());
Or this:
final Main x = new Main();
something(new Whatever() {
public void meh(Integer ignored) {
x.meh();
}
}
The new instance is "captured" and used in the new lambda instance which was implicitly created from the method handle.

Passing Object reference,Not getting expected result.

on passing object reference to static method m1() why it does not become null and why last statement doesn't give errror. Output is X
class I {
private String name;
public String name() {
return name;
}
public I (String s) {
name = s;
}
}
class J {
public static void m1 (I i){
i = null;
}
public static void main (String[] arg)
{
I i = new I("X");
m1(i);
System.out.print(i.name());
}
}

Java is pass by value so scope of i is limited to m1()
public static void m1 (I i){ // i is copied from i which is in main method but it is another variable whose scope lies within m1() only
i = null; // original i in main lies in main() method scope
}
If you change name of i in method m1(), confusion will be lesser like :
public static void m1 (I iObj){
iObj = null; // i in main() method still points to Object
}

Java uses pass by value exclusively. Changing the value of i within m1 only changes that parameter's value. It doesn't do anything to the variable i within main.
What may confuse you - it certainly confuses plenty of other people - is that although the arguments are passed by value, if the type of the parameter is a class, then that value is a reference... and indeed the value of the i variable in each case is a reference. That reference is still passed by value - the value of the argument is directly copied as the initial value of the parameter. However, if instead of changing the parameter itself you make a change to the object that the parameter value refers to, that's a different matter:
void foo(StringBuilder builder) {
builder.append("Hello");
}
void bar() {
StringBuilder x = new StringBuilder();
foo(x);
System.out.println(x); // Prints Hello
}
See the Java tutorial on passing information to a method or constructor for more details.

Java is pass by value (Read second answer in the link specially)
I i scope of i is limited to method m1 only.
In execution it looks something like:
`I i` in `m1()` points to `null` reference
I i method reference still points to `new I("X");`

Passing Argument in Java

New to Java here, please help. How arguments are passed in java? Why am I unable to change argument value in the calling method from within called method?
Code
public class PassTest {
public static void changeInt(int value)
{
value=55;
}
int val;
val=11;
changeInt(val);
System.out.println("Int value is:" + val);// calling modifier changeInt
}
Output
Int value is: 11
why it is not 55..?

Java passes by value, not by reference. In your method value contains a copy of the value from val. Modifying the copy does not change the original variable.
You could pass an int wrapped inside an object if you want your changes to be visible to the caller. You can for example use the class org.apache.commons.lang.mutable.MutableInt.
Java : Best way to pass int by reference

Java passes ByValue, meaning the value of the object you put as a parameter is passed, but not the object itself, therefore
val=11;
changeInt(val);
does the exact same thing as
int val=11;
int val2=val
changeInt(val2);
int is a primitive, primitives don't "wrap" a value, you could try to use an Integer class, or make your own class that stores an integer, and then change that classes integer value. Instances of an object are sometimes passed ByReference if setup right. here is an example
MyStringClass.java
public class MyStringClass{
private String string = null;
public MyStringClass(String s){
string = s;
}
public String getValue(){
return string;
}
public void setValue(String s){
string = s;
}
}
and then the workings
public static void addTo(String s){
s += " world";
}
public static void addTo(MyStringClass s){
s.setValue(s.getValue() + " world");
}
public static void main(String[] args){
String s = "hello";
MyStringClass s1 = new MyStringClass("hello");
addTo(s);
addTo(s1);
System.out.println(s);//hello
System.out.println(s1);//hello world
}
I would wonder why you need to change the value instead of just returning it? isn't it easier?

Java passes by Value, it makes a copy which is completely dis-associated with the original variable reference, which means it doesn't have access to change the original int. This is true for primitives as well as object references as well.
You can use AtomicInteger or something like it, to achieve what you are desiring to do.

Primitive variables are passed by value not reference as you are suggesting.

As others said, Java passes byValue by default which means that you are just getting a copy in the function. You can pass byReference, which will pass a pointer to the object and allow you to directly edit but this is not seen as best practice. I would suggest doing it like this:
public class PassTest {
public int changeInt(int value)
{
value = 55;
return value;
}
int val;
val=11;
val = changeInt(val);
System.out.println("Int value is:" + val);// calling modifier changeInt

Here is a Example to pass argument:
class Test {
int a,b;
public Test(int j, int k) {
a=j;
b=k;
}
void change(Test ko){
ko.a=ko.b+ko.a;
ko.a=ko.b-12;
}
}
class sdf {
public static void main(String[] args){
Test op=new Test(12,32);
System.out.println(op.a+" "+op.b);
op.change(op);
System.out.println(op.a+" "+op.b);
}
}
Take a look at this piece of code::
you can see , in this case the action inside change() have affected the object passed to the method
When an object reference is passed to the method ,the reference itself is passed to the method call-by-value . therefore , the parameter receives a copy of the reference used in this argument .As a result A change to the parameter (such as making it refers to the different object ) will not affect the reference used as the argument . however , since the parameter and the argument both refer to the same object , a change through the parameter will affect the object reffered by the argument.