Located here. Reading through these docs, it's not clear to me the reason that this distinction is made. The difference clearly is that the first method returns an Object array, and it looks like the second returns a Generic array. Could you please explain how these would be implemented differently and what the distinction is between them?
The method
<T> T[] toArray(T[] a)
already gets an array as a parameter and thus is able to return an array with the same base type.
The method
Object[] toArray()
does not know the base type (remind: generic types are erased at runtime), so it can only return an object array.
Simply said: For a Collection<String> you will get a String[] when calling the first method, and you will get an Object[] when calling the second method. And these are different types.
Just a note: This is other as with collections. As generic types are erased at runtime, a List<String> and a List<Object> are the same List type at runtime.
These methods returns the elements of a collection inside an array.
There are two differences between the 2 methods
The first one is not generic (meaning you'll need casting) while the second one is generic
The first one will instantiate a new array, while in the second one you may provide yourself the array that will be used. Its size needs to be equals or greater than the number of elements in the collection (or the method will also have to instantiate an array), but you can provide a bigger one if you plan to add more element to it.
And for your code, it won't compile
List<String> myCollection = new ArrayList<>();
nyCollection.add("example");
Object[] array1 = myCollection.toArray();
// a new array will be created by the toArray method
String[] array2 = myCollection.toArray(new String[0]);
// the provided array will be used
String[] array3 = myCollection.toArray(new String[2]);
Related
I'm surprised by how painful it is to use java.util.ArrayList<T>.toArray().
Suppose I declare my array list as:
java.util.ArrayList<double[]> arrayList = new java.util.ArrayList<double[]>();
... add some items ...
Then to convert it to an array, I have to do one of the following:
double[][] array = (double[][])arrayList.toArray(new double[0][]);
or:
double[][] array = (double[][])arrayList.toArray(new double[arrayList.size()][]);
or:
double[][] array = new double[arrayList.size()];
arrayList.toArray(array);
None of the above are very readable. Shouldn't I be able to say the following instead?
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray();
But that gives a compile error because Object[] can't be converted to double[][].
Perhaps it's not possible because toArray has to return Object[]
for backwards compatibility with pre-template days.
But if that's the case, couldn't a friendlier alternative method be added
with a different name? I can't think of a good name, but almost anything
would be better than the existing ways; e.g. the following would be fine:
double[][] array = arrayList.toArrayOfNaturalType();
No such member function exists, but maybe it's possible to write a generic helper function that will do it?
double[][] array = MyToArray(arrayList);
The signature of MyToArray would be something like:
public static <T> T[] MyToArray(java.util.ArrayList<T> arrayList)
Is it possible to implement such a function?
My various attempts at implementing it resulted in compile errors
"error: generic array creation" or "error: cannot select from a type variable".
Here's the closest I was able to get:
public static <T> T[] MyToArray(java.util.ArrayList<T> arrayList, Class type)
{
T[] array = (T[])java.lang.reflect.Array.newInstance(type, arrayList.size());
arrayList.toArray(array);
return array;
}
It's called like this:
double[][] array = MyToArray(arrayList, double[].class);
I wish the redundant final parameter wasn't there, but, even so,
I think this is the least-horrible way that I've seen so far for converting array list to array.
Is it possible to do any better than this?
Is it possible to do any better than this?
Nope.
None of the above are very readable. Shouldn't I be able to say the following instead?
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray();
It would be nice ... but you can't.
The problem is that the toArray() method was specified way back in Java 1.2 with the behavior you are seeing. Generic types were not added to the language until Java 1.5. When they were added, the designers chose the "type erasure" approach, for compatibility with earlier versions of Java. So:
the semantics of the toArray() methods could not be changed without breaking compatibility, and
type erasure makes it impossible for a toArray() method implementation to know what the list's actual element type is, so it could not get it right anyway.
Unfortunately you cannot write
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray();
The reason is that toArray() was defined in JDK 1.2 (prior to generics) to return Object[]. This cannot be changed compatibly.
Generics were introduced in Java 5 but were implemented using erasure. This means that the ArrayList instance has no knowledge at runtime of the types of objects it contains; therefore, it cannot create an array of the desired element type. That's why you have to pass a type token of some sort -- in this case an actual array instance -- to tell ArrayList the type of the array to create.
You should be able to write
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray(new double[0][]);
without a cast. The one-arg overload of toArray() is generified, so you'll get the right return type.
One might think that it's preferable to pass a pre-sized array instead of a throwaway zero-length array. Aleksey Shipilev wrote an article analyzing this question. The answer is, somewhat counterintuitively, that creating a zero-length array is potentially faster.
Briefly, the reason is that allocation is cheap, a zero-length array is small, and it's probably going to be thrown away and garbage collected quickly, which is also cheap. By contrast, creating a pre-sized array requires it to be allocated and then filled with nulls/zeroes. It's then passed to toArray(), which then fills it with values from the list. Thus, every array element is typically written twice. By passing a zero-length array to toArray(), this allows the array allocation to occur in the same code as the array filling code, providing the opportunity for the JIT compiler to bypass the initial zero-fill, since it knows that every array element will be filled.
There is also JDK-8060192 which proposes to add the following:
<A> A[] Collection.toArray(IntFunction<A[]> generator)
This lets you pass a lambda expression that is given the array size and returns a created array of that size. (This is similar to Stream.toArray().) For example,
// NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray(n -> new double[n][]);
double[][] array = arrayList.toArray(double[][]::new);
This isn't implemented yet, but I'm still hopeful this can get into JDK 9.
You could rewrite your helper function along these lines:
static <T> T[] myToArray(List<T> list, IntFunction<T[]> generator) {
return list.toArray(generator.apply(list.size()));
}
(Note that there is some subtlety here with concurrent modification of the list, which I'm ignoring for this example.) This would let you write:
double[][] array = myToArray(arrayList, double[][]::new);
which isn't terribly bad. But it's not actually clear that it's any better than just allocating a zero-length array to pass to toArray().
Finally, one might ask why toArray() takes an actual array instance instead of a Class object to denote the desired element type. Joshua Bloch (creator of the Java collections framework) said in comments on JDK-5072831 that this is feasible but that he's not sure it's a good idea, though he could live with it.
There an additional use case here as well, of copying the elements into an existing array, like the old Vector.copyInto() method. The array-bearing toArray(T[]) method also supports this use case. In fact, it's better than Vector.copyInto() because the latter cannot be used safely in the presence of concurrent modification, if the collection's size changes. The auto-sizing behavior of toArray(T[]) handles this, and it also handles the case of creating an array of the caller's desired type as described above. Thus, while adding an overload that takes a Class object would certainly work, it doesn't add much over the existing API.
I've been learning how to program with java and I haven't got any clear explanation about the difference of LinkedList's toArray(T[] a) and toArray() method. The second one simply returns all of the elements within the LinkedList object as an array, right? But, what about the first one?
EDIT :
I mean, I read the documentation from oracle, it says :
Returns an array containing all of the elements in this list in proper
sequence (from first to last element); the runtime type of the
returned array is that of the specified array. If the list fits in
the specified array, it is returned therein. Otherwise, a new array is
allocated with the runtime type of the specified array and the size of
this list. If the list fits in the specified array with room to spare
(i.e., the array has more elements than the list), the element in the
array immediately following the end of the list is set to null. (This
is useful in determining the length of the list only if the caller
knows that the list does not contain any null elements.)
Like the toArray() method, this method acts as bridge between
array-based and collection-based APIs. Further, this method allows
precise control over the runtime type of the output array, and may,
under certain circumstances, be used to save allocation costs.
I don't understand the meaning of the sentences displayed in bold.
Suppose you've a List<String>, and you want to convert it to String[]. Let's see the working of two methods:
List<String> source = new LinkedList<String>();
// Fill in some data
Object[] array1 = source.toArray();
String[] array2 = source.toArray(new String[source.size()]);
See the difference? The first one simply creates an Object[], because it doesn't know the type of the type parameter <T>, while the second one just fills up the String[] you passed (which is what you want). You would almost always need to use the 2nd method.
There are two differences :
The first returns T[] while the second returns Object[]
The first accepts an array as an argument, and if this array is large enough, it uses this array to store the elements of the Collection, instead of creating a new one.
Collection.toArray
We use the above method to convert a List<String> object to an equivalent String[].
List<String> foos = new ArrayList<String>();
// foos.toArray(new String[0]);
// foos.toArray(new String[foos.length]);
Which would be the right method to use in order to convert this into an Array.
This one:
foos.toArray(new String[foos.size()]);
Is the correct one to use. If you give toArray an array that is too short to fit the list into, toArray will allocate a new array instead of storing the elements in the array you supply. This means that Java will allocate two arrays instead of one and will waste a few clock cycles this way.
If you see the signature of the both functions you will clearly see whats the difference.
Object[] toArray();
The returned array will be "safe" in that no references to it are maintained by this collection. (In other words, this method must allocate a new array even if this collection is backed by an array). The caller is thus free to modify the returned array.
This method acts as bridge between array-based and collection-based APIs.
<T> T[] toArray(T[] a);
a the array into which the elements of this collection are to be stored, if it is big enough; otherwise, a new array of the same runtime type is allocated for this purpose.
String array[] = foos.toArray(new String[foos.size()]);
Note that it will also work with new String[0] but the array would need to be reallocated if foos.size() > 0.
This question already has answers here:
Converting 'ArrayList<String> to 'String[]' in Java
(17 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm working in the android environment and have tried the following code, but it doesn't seem to be working.
String [] stockArr = (String[]) stock_list.toArray();
If I define as follows:
String [] stockArr = {"hello", "world"};
it works. Is there something that I'm missing?
Use like this.
List<String> stockList = new ArrayList<String>();
stockList.add("stock1");
stockList.add("stock2");
String[] stockArr = new String[stockList.size()];
stockArr = stockList.toArray(stockArr);
for(String s : stockArr)
System.out.println(s);
Try this
String[] arr = list.toArray(new String[list.size()]);
What is happening is that stock_list.toArray() is creating an Object[] rather than a String[] and hence the typecast is failing1.
The correct code would be:
String [] stockArr = stockList.toArray(new String[stockList.size()]);
or even
String [] stockArr = stockList.toArray(new String[0]);
For more details, refer to the javadocs for the two overloads of List.toArray.
The latter version uses the zero-length array to determine the type of the result array. (Surprisingly, it is faster to do this than to preallocate ... at least, for recent Java releases. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/4042464/139985 for details.)
From a technical perspective, the reason for this API behavior / design is that an implementation of the List<T>.toArray() method has no information of what the <T> is at runtime. All it knows is that the raw element type is Object. By contrast, in the other case, the array parameter gives the base type of the array. (If the supplied array is big enough to hold the list elements, it is used. Otherwise a new array of the same type and a larger size is allocated and returned as the result.)
1 - In Java, an Object[] is not assignment compatible with a String[]. If it was, then you could do this:
Object[] objects = new Object[]{new Cat("fluffy")};
Dog[] dogs = (Dog[]) objects;
Dog d = dogs[0]; // Huh???
This is clearly nonsense, and that is why array types are not generally assignment compatible.
An alternative in Java 8:
String[] strings = list.stream().toArray(String[]::new);
I can see many answers showing how to solve problem, but only Stephen's answer is trying to explain why problem occurs so I will try to add something more on this subject. It is a story about possible reasons why Object[] toArray wasn't changed to T[] toArray where generics ware introduced to Java.
Why String[] stockArr = (String[]) stock_list.toArray(); wont work?
In Java, generic type exists at compile-time only. At runtime information about generic type (like in your case <String>) is removed and replaced with Object type (take a look at type erasure). That is why at runtime toArray() have no idea about what precise type to use to create new array, so it uses Object as safest type, because each class extends Object so it can safely store instance of any class.
Now the problem is that you can't cast instance of Object[] to String[].
Why? Take a look at this example (lets assume that class B extends A):
//B extends A
A a = new A();
B b = (B)a;
Although such code will compile, at runtime we will see thrown ClassCastException because instance held by reference a is not actually of type B (or its subtypes). Why is this problem (why this exception needs to be cast)? One of the reasons is that B could have new methods/fields which A doesn't, so it is possible that someone will try to use these new members via b reference even if held instance doesn't have (doesn't support) them. In other words we could end up trying to use data which doesn't exist, which could lead to many problems. So to prevent such situation JVM throws exception, and stop further potentially dangerous code.
You could ask now "So why aren't we stopped even earlier? Why code involving such casting is even compilable? Shouldn't compiler stop it?". Answer is: no because compiler can't know for sure what is the actual type of instance held by a reference, and there is a chance that it will hold instance of class B which will support interface of b reference. Take a look at this example:
A a = new B();
// ^------ Here reference "a" holds instance of type B
B b = (B)a; // so now casting is safe, now JVM is sure that `b` reference can
// safely access all members of B class
Now lets go back to your arrays. As you see in question, we can't cast instance of Object[] array to more precise type String[] like
Object[] arr = new Object[] { "ab", "cd" };
String[] arr2 = (String[]) arr;//ClassCastException will be thrown
Here problem is a little different. Now we are sure that String[] array will not have additional fields or methods because every array support only:
[] operator,
length filed,
methods inherited from Object supertype,
So it is not arrays interface which is making it impossible. Problem is that Object[] array beside Strings can store any objects (for instance Integers) so it is possible that one beautiful day we will end up with trying to invoke method like strArray[i].substring(1,3) on instance of Integer which doesn't have such method.
So to make sure that this situation will never happen, in Java array references can hold only
instances of array of same type as reference (reference String[] strArr can hold String[])
instances of array of subtype (Object[] can hold String[] because String is subtype of Object),
but can't hold
array of supertype of type of array from reference (String[] can't hold Object[])
array of type which is not related to type from reference (Integer[] can't hold String[])
In other words something like this is OK
Object[] arr = new String[] { "ab", "cd" }; //OK - because
// ^^^^^^^^ `arr` holds array of subtype of Object (String)
String[] arr2 = (String[]) arr; //OK - `arr2` reference will hold same array of same type as
// reference
You could say that one way to resolve this problem is to find at runtime most common type between all list elements and create array of that type, but this wont work in situations where all elements of list will be of one type derived from generic one. Take a look
//B extends A
List<A> elements = new ArrayList<A>();
elements.add(new B());
elements.add(new B());
now most common type is B, not A so toArray()
A[] arr = elements.toArray();
would return array of B class new B[]. Problem with this array is that while compiler would allow you to edit its content by adding new A() element to it, you would get ArrayStoreException because B[] array can hold only elements of class B or its subclass, to make sure that all elements will support interface of B, but instance of A may not have all methods/fields of B. So this solution is not perfect.
Best solution to this problem is explicitly tell what type of array toArray() should be returned by passing this type as method argument like
String[] arr = list.toArray(new String[list.size()]);
or
String[] arr = list.toArray(new String[0]); //if size of array is smaller then list it will be automatically adjusted.
The correct way to do this is:
String[] stockArr = stock_list.toArray(new String[stock_list.size()]);
I'd like to add to the other great answers here and explain how you could have used the Javadocs to answer your question.
The Javadoc for toArray() (no arguments) is here. As you can see, this method returns an Object[] and not String[] which is an array of the runtime type of your list:
public Object[] toArray()
Returns an array containing all of the
elements in this collection. If the collection makes any guarantees as
to what order its elements are returned by its iterator, this method
must return the elements in the same order. The returned array will be
"safe" in that no references to it are maintained by the collection.
(In other words, this method must allocate a new array even if the
collection is backed by an Array). The caller is thus free to modify
the returned array.
Right below that method, though, is the Javadoc for toArray(T[] a). As you can see, this method returns a T[] where T is the type of the array you pass in. At first this seems like what you're looking for, but it's unclear exactly why you're passing in an array (are you adding to it, using it for just the type, etc). The documentation makes it clear that the purpose of the passed array is essentially to define the type of array to return (which is exactly your use case):
public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a)
Returns an array containing all of the
elements in this collection; the runtime type of the returned array is
that of the specified array. If the collection fits in the specified
array, it is returned therein. Otherwise, a new array is allocated
with the runtime type of the specified array and the size of this
collection. If the collection fits in the specified array with room to
spare (i.e., the array has more elements than the collection), the
element in the array immediately following the end of the collection
is set to null. This is useful in determining the length of the
collection only if the caller knows that the collection does not
contain any null elements.)
If this collection makes any guarantees as to what order its elements
are returned by its iterator, this method must return the elements in
the same order.
This implementation checks if the array is large enough to contain the
collection; if not, it allocates a new array of the correct size and
type (using reflection). Then, it iterates over the collection,
storing each object reference in the next consecutive element of the
array, starting with element 0. If the array is larger than the
collection, a null is stored in the first location after the end of
the collection.
Of course, an understanding of generics (as described in the other answers) is required to really understand the difference between these two methods. Nevertheless, if you first go to the Javadocs, you will usually find your answer and then see for yourself what else you need to learn (if you really do).
Also note that reading the Javadocs here helps you to understand what the structure of the array you pass in should be. Though it may not really practically matter, you should not pass in an empty array like this:
String [] stockArr = stockList.toArray(new String[0]);
Because, from the doc, this implementation checks if the array is large enough to contain the collection; if not, it allocates a new array of the correct size and type (using reflection). There's no need for the extra overhead in creating a new array when you could easily pass in the size.
As is usually the case, the Javadocs provide you with a wealth of information and direction.
Hey wait a minute, what's reflection?
String[] a = c.toArray(new String[0]);
First: Do I need type cast here? (I think we should write like (String[])c.toArray(); BUT I have seen it as just c.toArray() without using type cast. Is this valid?
Second: Also why we write new String[0]?
The type cast is usually only needed if you're using pre-generics Java. If you look at the docs for Collection.toArray(T[]) you'll see that it knows that the type of the array which is returned is the same as the type of array passed in. So, you can write:
List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
list.add("Foo");
String[] array = list.toArray(new String[0]);
You pass in the array to tell the collection what result type you want, which may not be the same as the type in the collection. For example, if you have a List<OutputStream> you may want to convert that to an Object[], a Stream[] or a ByteArrayOutputStream[] - obviously the latter is only going to work if every element actually is a ByteArrayOutputStream. It also means that if you already have an array of the right type and size, the contents can be copied into that instead of creating a new array.
A previous version of this answer was inaccurate, by the way - if you use the overload which doesn't take any parameters, you always get back an Object[] which can't be cast:
List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
list.add("Foo");
// toArray doesn't know the type of array to create
// due to type erasure
Object[] array = list.toArray();
// This cast will fail at execution time
String[] stringArray = (String[]) arrray;
EDIT: I've just noticed this is also mentioned in erdemoo's answer, but it can't hurt to have it here too :)
if you are using list.toArray(), it will return you Object array.
Casting to String array will throw exception even if elements stored in list are String type.
if you are using list.toArray(Object[] a), it will store elements in list to "a" array. If the elements inside the list are String and you give String array then it will store elements inside String array, if given array is not large enough to store elements inside the list, then it will expand given list.
Yes you need the downcast since toArray's returns type is Object[].
You need to pass (new String[0]) as a parameter since the method needs to know what kind of array it should return (array of strings, Dates, etc.) Internally all list elements are actually objects so the list does not know the type of elements it is holding and therefore it does not know which kind of array it should return, unless you provide it as a parameter.