Error “illegal generic type for instanceof” when using local classes Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience Should we burninate the [wrap] tag? The Ask Question Wizard is Live!“illegal generic type of instanceof” when using instanceof on an inner class type?How to refer to a class when both simple and fully-qualified names clashCreate instance of generic type in Java?Calling a static method on a generic type parameterCollections.emptyList() returns a List<Object>?How to get the type of T from a member of a generic class or method?“illegal generic type of instanceof” when using instanceof on an inner class type?Get generic type of class at runtimeHow to get a class instance of generics type THow to make a Java Generic method static?Google Gson - deserialize list<class> object? (generic type)Get “Illegal generic type for instanceof” error when coparison

Why do people hide their license plates in the EU?

Why did the rest of the Eastern Bloc not invade Yugoslavia?

Error "illegal generic type for instanceof" when using local classes

porting install scripts : can rpm replace apt?

Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

Can a non-EU citizen with residency visa traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line, when entering Schengen area?

When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?

When do you get frequent flier miles - when you buy, or when you fly?

Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?

What are the pros and cons of Aerospike nosecones?

What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?

How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?

2001: A Space Odyssey's use of the song "Daisy Bell" (Bicycle Built for Two); life imitates art or vice-versa?

Compare a given version number in the form major.minor.build.patch and see if one is less than the other

What exactly is a "Meth" in Altered Carbon?

Can a USB port passively 'listen only'?

What is Wonderstone and are there any references to it pre-1982?

How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?

Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?

Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?

Sci-Fi book where patients in a coma ward all live in a subconscious world linked together

Understanding Ceva's Theorem

Novel: non-telepath helps overthrow rule by telepaths



Error “illegal generic type for instanceof” when using local classes



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
Should we burninate the [wrap] tag?
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!“illegal generic type of instanceof” when using instanceof on an inner class type?How to refer to a class when both simple and fully-qualified names clashCreate instance of generic type in Java?Calling a static method on a generic type parameterCollections.emptyList() returns a List<Object>?How to get the type of T from a member of a generic class or method?“illegal generic type of instanceof” when using instanceof on an inner class type?Get generic type of class at runtimeHow to get a class instance of generics type THow to make a Java Generic method static?Google Gson - deserialize list<class> object? (generic type)Get “Illegal generic type for instanceof” error when coparison



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








34















I have the following Java code that uses a local class.



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
void m()
class Z

for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z)




It does not compile with the following error message:



X.java:8: error: illegal generic type for instanceof
if (o instanceof Z)
^
1 error


I understand that the local class Z inherits the generic type signature of X<T>, being an inner class. The same kind of compilation error appears in this example, where Z is not local, but still inner:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compilation error




It can be worked around either by making Z non-inner / static:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
static class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compiles now




Or by qualifying X.Z:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof X.Z) // Compiles now
if (o instanceof X<?>.Z) // Also





But how can I qualify a local class, or work around this limitation, without changing the local class itself?










share|improve this question
























  • I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago


















34















I have the following Java code that uses a local class.



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
void m()
class Z

for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z)




It does not compile with the following error message:



X.java:8: error: illegal generic type for instanceof
if (o instanceof Z)
^
1 error


I understand that the local class Z inherits the generic type signature of X<T>, being an inner class. The same kind of compilation error appears in this example, where Z is not local, but still inner:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compilation error




It can be worked around either by making Z non-inner / static:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
static class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compiles now




Or by qualifying X.Z:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof X.Z) // Compiles now
if (o instanceof X<?>.Z) // Also





But how can I qualify a local class, or work around this limitation, without changing the local class itself?










share|improve this question
























  • I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago














34












34








34


2






I have the following Java code that uses a local class.



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
void m()
class Z

for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z)




It does not compile with the following error message:



X.java:8: error: illegal generic type for instanceof
if (o instanceof Z)
^
1 error


I understand that the local class Z inherits the generic type signature of X<T>, being an inner class. The same kind of compilation error appears in this example, where Z is not local, but still inner:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compilation error




It can be worked around either by making Z non-inner / static:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
static class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compiles now




Or by qualifying X.Z:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof X.Z) // Compiles now
if (o instanceof X<?>.Z) // Also





But how can I qualify a local class, or work around this limitation, without changing the local class itself?










share|improve this question
















I have the following Java code that uses a local class.



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
void m()
class Z

for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z)




It does not compile with the following error message:



X.java:8: error: illegal generic type for instanceof
if (o instanceof Z)
^
1 error


I understand that the local class Z inherits the generic type signature of X<T>, being an inner class. The same kind of compilation error appears in this example, where Z is not local, but still inner:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compilation error




It can be worked around either by making Z non-inner / static:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
static class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof Z) // Compiles now




Or by qualifying X.Z:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
class Z

void m()
for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (o instanceof X.Z) // Compiles now
if (o instanceof X<?>.Z) // Also





But how can I qualify a local class, or work around this limitation, without changing the local class itself?







java generics local-class






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Peter Mortensen

13.9k1987114




13.9k1987114










asked 22 hours ago









Lukas EderLukas Eder

137k74448987




137k74448987












  • I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago


















  • I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago






  • 2





    A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago

















I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

– RealSkeptic
22 hours ago





I think this is a kind of compiler pathology. It's a strange way of telling you the type is not reifiable. It's even worse in Eclipse - it tells you "Use the form Z instead".

– RealSkeptic
22 hours ago




1




1





@RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

– Lukas Eder
21 hours ago





@RealSkeptic: Eclipse's compiler message is just "unlucky" here. It is usually a helpful extra information.

– Lukas Eder
21 hours ago




2




2





A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

– Andy Turner
21 hours ago






A corollary of this is that Z[] array = new Z[0]; is also illegal.

– Andy Turner
21 hours ago













4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















23














To me this seems to be an oversight or limitation in the Java language and I do not think it is possible.



The referenced type in an instanceof expression must be reifiable according to JLS 4.7, meaning that it must be expressed as a reifiable type by its fully qualified name. At the same time, JLS 6.7 states that local classes do not have a fully qualified name, they can therefore not be expressed as reifiable.



If you declare Z as generic, the instanceof operator treats Z as a raw type where all generic properties to it - in this case the enclosing class - are considered raw as well. (Similar to a generic methods of a raw type being considered as raw despite any generic signature. This is a measure to retain backwards compatiblity of type generification.) Since any raw type is reifiable, declaring Z to be generic will compile.






share|improve this answer

























  • It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago











  • "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago






  • 3





    Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago











  • I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago











  • @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago



















16














A possible workaround is to use reflection:



import java.util.Arrays;

public class X<T>
void m()
class Z

for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
if (Z.class.isInstance(o))







share|improve this answer






























    2














    Apparently, by making Z generic compilation succeeds. I expected that to require <T> as the type parameter, but you just have to make it generic, so anything will do



    import java.util.Arrays;

    public class X<T>
    void m()
    class Z<Anything>

    for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
    if (Z.class.isInstance(o))




    Proper solution would be qualify the local class, but I don't think you can. Either you refactor it to a private static class or that's probably the best you can get.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

      – Lukas Eder
      22 hours ago


















    0














    This should work either. Using reflection too. But seems a valid solution.



    import java.util.Arrays;

    public class X<T>


    void m()

    class Z2


    for(Object o: Arrays.asList(1,2,3))
    if(Z2.class.isAssignableFrom(o.getClass()))












    share|improve this answer

























    • I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

      – Lukas Eder
      22 hours ago











    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55703849%2ferror-illegal-generic-type-for-instanceof-when-using-local-classes%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    23














    To me this seems to be an oversight or limitation in the Java language and I do not think it is possible.



    The referenced type in an instanceof expression must be reifiable according to JLS 4.7, meaning that it must be expressed as a reifiable type by its fully qualified name. At the same time, JLS 6.7 states that local classes do not have a fully qualified name, they can therefore not be expressed as reifiable.



    If you declare Z as generic, the instanceof operator treats Z as a raw type where all generic properties to it - in this case the enclosing class - are considered raw as well. (Similar to a generic methods of a raw type being considered as raw despite any generic signature. This is a measure to retain backwards compatiblity of type generification.) Since any raw type is reifiable, declaring Z to be generic will compile.






    share|improve this answer

























    • It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

      – RealSkeptic
      22 hours ago











    • "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

      – Lukas Eder
      21 hours ago






    • 3





      Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

      – Andy Turner
      21 hours ago
















    23














    To me this seems to be an oversight or limitation in the Java language and I do not think it is possible.



    The referenced type in an instanceof expression must be reifiable according to JLS 4.7, meaning that it must be expressed as a reifiable type by its fully qualified name. At the same time, JLS 6.7 states that local classes do not have a fully qualified name, they can therefore not be expressed as reifiable.



    If you declare Z as generic, the instanceof operator treats Z as a raw type where all generic properties to it - in this case the enclosing class - are considered raw as well. (Similar to a generic methods of a raw type being considered as raw despite any generic signature. This is a measure to retain backwards compatiblity of type generification.) Since any raw type is reifiable, declaring Z to be generic will compile.






    share|improve this answer

























    • It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

      – RealSkeptic
      22 hours ago











    • "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

      – Lukas Eder
      21 hours ago






    • 3





      Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

      – Andy Turner
      21 hours ago














    23












    23








    23







    To me this seems to be an oversight or limitation in the Java language and I do not think it is possible.



    The referenced type in an instanceof expression must be reifiable according to JLS 4.7, meaning that it must be expressed as a reifiable type by its fully qualified name. At the same time, JLS 6.7 states that local classes do not have a fully qualified name, they can therefore not be expressed as reifiable.



    If you declare Z as generic, the instanceof operator treats Z as a raw type where all generic properties to it - in this case the enclosing class - are considered raw as well. (Similar to a generic methods of a raw type being considered as raw despite any generic signature. This is a measure to retain backwards compatiblity of type generification.) Since any raw type is reifiable, declaring Z to be generic will compile.






    share|improve this answer















    To me this seems to be an oversight or limitation in the Java language and I do not think it is possible.



    The referenced type in an instanceof expression must be reifiable according to JLS 4.7, meaning that it must be expressed as a reifiable type by its fully qualified name. At the same time, JLS 6.7 states that local classes do not have a fully qualified name, they can therefore not be expressed as reifiable.



    If you declare Z as generic, the instanceof operator treats Z as a raw type where all generic properties to it - in this case the enclosing class - are considered raw as well. (Similar to a generic methods of a raw type being considered as raw despite any generic signature. This is a measure to retain backwards compatiblity of type generification.) Since any raw type is reifiable, declaring Z to be generic will compile.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 21 hours ago

























    answered 22 hours ago









    Rafael WinterhalterRafael Winterhalter

    28.6k1368149




    28.6k1368149












    • It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

      – RealSkeptic
      22 hours ago











    • "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

      – Lukas Eder
      21 hours ago






    • 3





      Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

      – Andy Turner
      21 hours ago


















    • It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

      – RealSkeptic
      22 hours ago











    • "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

      – Lukas Eder
      21 hours ago






    • 3





      Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

      – Rafael Winterhalter
      21 hours ago











    • @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

      – Andy Turner
      21 hours ago

















    It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago





    It's true, but curiously, it does allow it if Z itself is generic, despite the fact that you have no way to qualify it.

    – RealSkeptic
    22 hours ago













    "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago





    "oversight" - You're here to pick a fight with the JLS designers, right? :)

    – Lukas Eder
    21 hours ago




    3




    3





    Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago





    Generics were patched into the language and there are some corner cases such as class literals that were not properly covered. Nothing is perfect, I think there is a chance for an oversight. ;)

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago













    I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago





    I extended my answer to explain why generification of Z does the trick.

    – Rafael Winterhalter
    21 hours ago













    @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago






    @LukasEder I think oversight is right. It's sort of like this question: these cases could have been designed around, but they haven't been; I make no judgment as to whether they should have been.

    – Andy Turner
    21 hours ago














    16














    A possible workaround is to use reflection:



    import java.util.Arrays;

    public class X<T>
    void m()
    class Z

    for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
    if (Z.class.isInstance(o))







    share|improve this answer



























      16














      A possible workaround is to use reflection:



      import java.util.Arrays;

      public class X<T>
      void m()
      class Z

      for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
      if (Z.class.isInstance(o))







      share|improve this answer

























        16












        16








        16







        A possible workaround is to use reflection:



        import java.util.Arrays;

        public class X<T>
        void m()
        class Z

        for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
        if (Z.class.isInstance(o))







        share|improve this answer













        A possible workaround is to use reflection:



        import java.util.Arrays;

        public class X<T>
        void m()
        class Z

        for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
        if (Z.class.isInstance(o))








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 22 hours ago









        Lukas EderLukas Eder

        137k74448987




        137k74448987





















            2














            Apparently, by making Z generic compilation succeeds. I expected that to require <T> as the type parameter, but you just have to make it generic, so anything will do



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>
            void m()
            class Z<Anything>

            for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
            if (Z.class.isInstance(o))




            Proper solution would be qualify the local class, but I don't think you can. Either you refactor it to a private static class or that's probably the best you can get.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago















            2














            Apparently, by making Z generic compilation succeeds. I expected that to require <T> as the type parameter, but you just have to make it generic, so anything will do



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>
            void m()
            class Z<Anything>

            for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
            if (Z.class.isInstance(o))




            Proper solution would be qualify the local class, but I don't think you can. Either you refactor it to a private static class or that's probably the best you can get.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago













            2












            2








            2







            Apparently, by making Z generic compilation succeeds. I expected that to require <T> as the type parameter, but you just have to make it generic, so anything will do



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>
            void m()
            class Z<Anything>

            for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
            if (Z.class.isInstance(o))




            Proper solution would be qualify the local class, but I don't think you can. Either you refactor it to a private static class or that's probably the best you can get.






            share|improve this answer















            Apparently, by making Z generic compilation succeeds. I expected that to require <T> as the type parameter, but you just have to make it generic, so anything will do



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>
            void m()
            class Z<Anything>

            for (Object o : Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3))
            if (Z.class.isInstance(o))




            Proper solution would be qualify the local class, but I don't think you can. Either you refactor it to a private static class or that's probably the best you can get.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 22 hours ago

























            answered 22 hours ago









            Edoardo VacchiEdoardo Vacchi

            759715




            759715







            • 2





              Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago












            • 2





              Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago







            2




            2





            Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

            – Lukas Eder
            22 hours ago





            Once you make Z generic, you don't need to apply the reflection workaround anymore...

            – Lukas Eder
            22 hours ago











            0














            This should work either. Using reflection too. But seems a valid solution.



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>


            void m()

            class Z2


            for(Object o: Arrays.asList(1,2,3))
            if(Z2.class.isAssignableFrom(o.getClass()))












            share|improve this answer

























            • I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago















            0














            This should work either. Using reflection too. But seems a valid solution.



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>


            void m()

            class Z2


            for(Object o: Arrays.asList(1,2,3))
            if(Z2.class.isAssignableFrom(o.getClass()))












            share|improve this answer

























            • I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago













            0












            0








            0







            This should work either. Using reflection too. But seems a valid solution.



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>


            void m()

            class Z2


            for(Object o: Arrays.asList(1,2,3))
            if(Z2.class.isAssignableFrom(o.getClass()))












            share|improve this answer















            This should work either. Using reflection too. But seems a valid solution.



            import java.util.Arrays;

            public class X<T>


            void m()

            class Z2


            for(Object o: Arrays.asList(1,2,3))
            if(Z2.class.isAssignableFrom(o.getClass()))













            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 22 hours ago









            Mark Rotteveel

            62.2k1479123




            62.2k1479123










            answered 22 hours ago









            JWThewesJWThewes

            191




            191












            • I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago

















            • I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

              – Lukas Eder
              22 hours ago
















            I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

            – Lukas Eder
            22 hours ago





            I didn't downvote, but I guess it's because there's a slightly better way to use reflection here, as I've mentioned in my own answer

            – Lukas Eder
            22 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55703849%2ferror-illegal-generic-type-for-instanceof-when-using-local-classes%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            The Calvary Singular or Plural The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InAre collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?Is “audience” singular or plural?“Wasn't” vs. “weren't” in a vernacular sentence“My last couple of years” — singular or plural?Is 'rest' singular or plural?Is “all but one” singular or plural?Whether to use the singular or plural form of basis?Singular and Plural for numbersIs there a plural form of teeth?performance: plural vs singular?singular or plural nouns?Singular and Plural

            How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?Ideas for how aliens would approach this fight?How to convey the scale of my humanoid without science or units?How does the “space drive” conserve momentum?Planet Vanishes - How does this affect the orbiting starships?How does a community of a Universe Simulator have the same language as its creator?How would US Presidential elections be affected if voters could choose the state their vote for President was counted in?How Does One Ensures the Immortality of Their ConsciousnessHow do I retain national independence while also having a one world government?How can Ganymede have an Earth-like gravity without us having realized it?How would one make a lion mount for a fantasy world?

            Output visual diagram of pictureASCII-art logic gate diagramBooks on a ShelfDetermine the Dimensions of a Rotated RectangleDraw a Houndstooth PatternDraw and label an ASCII hexagonal gridGolf me an ASCII AlphabetASCII Jigsaw PuzzleOutput a pretty boxASCII-Art Venn DiagramASCII Exact Cover with Rectangles