Java generic constructor

Question

Node( T itemArg, Node<T>  nextArg ) {

    this.item = itemArg;       
    this.next = nextArg;

}

Is this the right way to represent generic constructor

It would depends on what you are trying to do... but in principle, this is not incorrect. — AxelH
– AxelH, Commented May 2, 2018 at 5:57
Possible duplicate of how to create a generic constructor for a generic class in java? You are correct that that would work. — Devon Rutledge
– Devon Rutledge, Commented May 2, 2018 at 5:58
General comment: This 'construct' resembles the old C-way of representing linked lists. In Java, we have many high-level data structures (including linked and double-linked lists), so this way of representing a linked list is not necessary. — Flying Dutchman
– Flying Dutchman, Commented May 2, 2018 at 6:16
The only slightly unusual thing here is unrelated to the generics: there is no need to call the parameter fooArg and qualify the field this.foo: foo = fooArg;, or renaming the parameter to foo and using this.foo = foo;, is more usual. But it isn't wrong to do it like this. — Andy Turner
– Andy Turner, Commented May 2, 2018 at 6:24

tlogbon · Accepted Answer · 2018-05-02 06:10:17Z

1

This is correct, as long as the parameter is specified in the class definition.

EDIT: Ensure item is an instance of T, and next is an instance of Node<T>.

public class Node<T> {
  T item;
  Node<T> next;
  //your constructor
}

answered May 2, 2018 at 6:00

tlogbon

1,31213 silver badges13 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

If you go there, you should also specifiy that item should be an instance of T and next an instance of Node<T>.