More like a type puzzle, is it possible to solve it without specifying the second type as well? ```...

# announcements

[ghedeon]

More like a type puzzle, is it possible to solve it without specifying the second type as well?

interface IFoo<A>
class Foo: IFoo<String>
class Bar<A>: IFoo<A>

inline fun <reified T: IFoo<*>> createBar(){
   val type = T::class.supertypes[0].arguments[0].type // the type is not lost, String is here

   Bar<type>() // ?? how to use it here
}

createBar<Foo>()

I know that I can declare something like fun <A, T:IFoo<A> createBar(), but it's kind of repeating myself and the A is already known...

[Animesh Sahu]

What's the problem with Bar<T>() ?

[Animesh Sahu]

i.e. what's the point of using reflection?

[Dico]

You need an unchecked cast here.

[Dico]

Using the second type parameter would be a lot prettier

[ghedeon]

@Dico how is cast going to help to create Bar<type>? I mean, this line doesn't even compile 🙂

[Dico]

Well, there's no point having the type at all. Generics are erased at runtime, yet you're trying to use them at runtime 😛
Unless something is missing from your example?

[ghedeon]

But it's not erased in this case, the type variable holds the exact generic argument, which is String here. So, it's more like a theorethical question, if it's possible to pass it to Bar<here>() or not.

[Dico]

I think you know the answer

[Dico]

Haha

[Dico]

Merry Christmas