Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?How to round a number to n decimal places in JavaWhat is the difference between public, protected, package-private and private in Java?How do I call one constructor from another in Java?When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java?What does 'synchronized' mean?What is the Java equivalent for LINQ?What is a daemon thread in Java?Java: when to use static methodsWhat are the -Xms and -Xmx parameters when starting JVM?What does “Could not find or load main class” mean?

Translation of Scottish 16th century church stained glass

Why has "pence" been used in this sentence, not "pences"?

Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?

Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?

Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th Century

Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?

Why does Async/Await work properly when the loop is inside the async function and not the other way around?

How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?

Will adding a BY-SA image to a blog post make the entire post BY-SA?

How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?

Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?

Difference between -| and |- in TikZ

Why is Arduino resetting while driving motors?

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)

Is there a conventional notation or name for the slip angle?

Is a model fitted to data or is data fitted to a model?

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?

THT: What is a squared annular “ring”?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

Customize circled numbers

Journal losing indexing services

Some numbers are more equivalent than others

Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?



Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?


How to round a number to n decimal places in JavaWhat is the difference between public, protected, package-private and private in Java?How do I call one constructor from another in Java?When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java?What does 'synchronized' mean?What is the Java equivalent for LINQ?What is a daemon thread in Java?Java: when to use static methodsWhat are the -Xms and -Xmx parameters when starting JVM?What does “Could not find or load main class” mean?













7















I've recently come across this unusual (to me) Java syntax...here's an example of it:



List list = new <String, Long>ArrayList();


Notice the positioning of the <String, Long> type arguments...it's not after the type as normal but before. I don't mind admitting I've never seen this syntax before. Also note there are 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1.



Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as putting them after the type? If not, what does the different positioning mean?



Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?



I've searched the usual places, eg. Angelika Langer and on here but can't find any mention of this syntax anywhere apart from the grammar rules in the Java grammar file on the ANTLR project.










share|improve this question






















  • Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

    – Nathan Adams
    51 mins ago






  • 2





    A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

    – Ole V.V.
    50 mins ago







  • 1





    OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

    – Nathan Adams
    45 mins ago






  • 1





    No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

    – Elliott Frisch
    44 mins ago











  • @OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

    – Nathan Adams
    43 mins ago















7















I've recently come across this unusual (to me) Java syntax...here's an example of it:



List list = new <String, Long>ArrayList();


Notice the positioning of the <String, Long> type arguments...it's not after the type as normal but before. I don't mind admitting I've never seen this syntax before. Also note there are 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1.



Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as putting them after the type? If not, what does the different positioning mean?



Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?



I've searched the usual places, eg. Angelika Langer and on here but can't find any mention of this syntax anywhere apart from the grammar rules in the Java grammar file on the ANTLR project.










share|improve this question






















  • Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

    – Nathan Adams
    51 mins ago






  • 2





    A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

    – Ole V.V.
    50 mins ago







  • 1





    OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

    – Nathan Adams
    45 mins ago






  • 1





    No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

    – Elliott Frisch
    44 mins ago











  • @OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

    – Nathan Adams
    43 mins ago













7












7








7


1






I've recently come across this unusual (to me) Java syntax...here's an example of it:



List list = new <String, Long>ArrayList();


Notice the positioning of the <String, Long> type arguments...it's not after the type as normal but before. I don't mind admitting I've never seen this syntax before. Also note there are 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1.



Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as putting them after the type? If not, what does the different positioning mean?



Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?



I've searched the usual places, eg. Angelika Langer and on here but can't find any mention of this syntax anywhere apart from the grammar rules in the Java grammar file on the ANTLR project.










share|improve this question














I've recently come across this unusual (to me) Java syntax...here's an example of it:



List list = new <String, Long>ArrayList();


Notice the positioning of the <String, Long> type arguments...it's not after the type as normal but before. I don't mind admitting I've never seen this syntax before. Also note there are 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1.



Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as putting them after the type? If not, what does the different positioning mean?



Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?



I've searched the usual places, eg. Angelika Langer and on here but can't find any mention of this syntax anywhere apart from the grammar rules in the Java grammar file on the ANTLR project.







java grammar






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 54 mins ago









Nathan AdamsNathan Adams

1638




1638












  • Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

    – Nathan Adams
    51 mins ago






  • 2





    A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

    – Ole V.V.
    50 mins ago







  • 1





    OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

    – Nathan Adams
    45 mins ago






  • 1





    No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

    – Elliott Frisch
    44 mins ago











  • @OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

    – Nathan Adams
    43 mins ago

















  • Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

    – Nathan Adams
    51 mins ago






  • 2





    A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

    – Ole V.V.
    50 mins ago







  • 1





    OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

    – Nathan Adams
    45 mins ago






  • 1





    No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

    – Elliott Frisch
    44 mins ago











  • @OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

    – Nathan Adams
    43 mins ago
















Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

– Nathan Adams
51 mins ago





Yeah so do I, I'm not asking how to create a list lol

– Nathan Adams
51 mins ago




2




2





A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

– Ole V.V.
50 mins ago






A constructor may have type arguments that are placed there (this particular constructor hasn’t, so <String, Long> is just ignored). See Generics Constructor.

– Ole V.V.
50 mins ago





1




1





OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

– Nathan Adams
45 mins ago





OK that makes sense, although it's weird that there's no compile error even though there's no type arguments on the constructor

– Nathan Adams
45 mins ago




1




1





No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

– Elliott Frisch
44 mins ago





No error, but you get a warning about raw types. Don't use raw types. Do use the diamond operator. List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();

– Elliott Frisch
44 mins ago













@OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

– Nathan Adams
43 mins ago





@OleV.V. if you wanna put your comment and link as an answer I'll accept it

– Nathan Adams
43 mins ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














This is unusual alright, but fully valid Java. A class may have a generic constructor, for example:



public class TypeWithGenericConstructor 

public <T> TypeWithGenericConstructor(T arg)
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub





I suppose that more often than not we don’t need to make the type argument explicit. For example:



 new TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


Now T is clearly LocalDate. However there may be cases where Java cannot infer (deduce) the type argument. Then we supply it explicitly using the syntax from your question:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(null);


Of course we may also supply it even though it is not necessary if we think it helps readability or for whatever reason:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


In your question you seem to be calling the java.util.ArrayList constructor. That constructor is not generic (only the ArrayList class as a whole is, that’s something else). Why Java allows you to supply type arguments in the call when they are not used, I don’t know, but it does. My Eclipse gives me a warning:




Unused type arguments for the non generic constructor ArrayList() of
type ArrayList; it should not be parameterized with arguments




But it’s not an error, and the program runs fine (I additionally get warnings about missing type arguments for List and ArrayList, but that again is a different story).




Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as
putting them after the type? If not, what does the different
positioning mean?




No, it’s different. The usual type argument/s after the type (ArrayList<Integer>) are for the generic class. The type arguments before are for the * constructor*.



The two forms may also be combined:



 List<Integer> list = new <String, Long>ArrayList<Integer>();


I would consider this a bit more correct since we can now see that the list stores Integer objects (I’d still prefer to leave out the meaningless <String, Long>, of course).




Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?




First, if you supply type arguments before the type, you should supply the correct number for the constructor, not for the class, so it hasn’t got anything to do with how many type arguments the ArrayList class has got. That really means that in this case you shouldn’t supply any since the constructor doesn’t take type arguments (it’s not generic). When you supply some anyway, they are ignored, which is why it doesn’t matter how many or how few you supply (I repeat, I don’t know why Java allows you to supply them meaninglessly).






share|improve this answer

























  • But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

    – jaspreet
    19 mins ago











  • Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

    – Ole V.V.
    9 mins 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%2f55330697%2fjava-what-do-constructor-type-arguments-mean-when-placed-before-the-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














This is unusual alright, but fully valid Java. A class may have a generic constructor, for example:



public class TypeWithGenericConstructor 

public <T> TypeWithGenericConstructor(T arg)
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub





I suppose that more often than not we don’t need to make the type argument explicit. For example:



 new TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


Now T is clearly LocalDate. However there may be cases where Java cannot infer (deduce) the type argument. Then we supply it explicitly using the syntax from your question:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(null);


Of course we may also supply it even though it is not necessary if we think it helps readability or for whatever reason:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


In your question you seem to be calling the java.util.ArrayList constructor. That constructor is not generic (only the ArrayList class as a whole is, that’s something else). Why Java allows you to supply type arguments in the call when they are not used, I don’t know, but it does. My Eclipse gives me a warning:




Unused type arguments for the non generic constructor ArrayList() of
type ArrayList; it should not be parameterized with arguments




But it’s not an error, and the program runs fine (I additionally get warnings about missing type arguments for List and ArrayList, but that again is a different story).




Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as
putting them after the type? If not, what does the different
positioning mean?




No, it’s different. The usual type argument/s after the type (ArrayList<Integer>) are for the generic class. The type arguments before are for the * constructor*.



The two forms may also be combined:



 List<Integer> list = new <String, Long>ArrayList<Integer>();


I would consider this a bit more correct since we can now see that the list stores Integer objects (I’d still prefer to leave out the meaningless <String, Long>, of course).




Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?




First, if you supply type arguments before the type, you should supply the correct number for the constructor, not for the class, so it hasn’t got anything to do with how many type arguments the ArrayList class has got. That really means that in this case you shouldn’t supply any since the constructor doesn’t take type arguments (it’s not generic). When you supply some anyway, they are ignored, which is why it doesn’t matter how many or how few you supply (I repeat, I don’t know why Java allows you to supply them meaninglessly).






share|improve this answer

























  • But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

    – jaspreet
    19 mins ago











  • Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

    – Ole V.V.
    9 mins ago















5














This is unusual alright, but fully valid Java. A class may have a generic constructor, for example:



public class TypeWithGenericConstructor 

public <T> TypeWithGenericConstructor(T arg)
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub





I suppose that more often than not we don’t need to make the type argument explicit. For example:



 new TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


Now T is clearly LocalDate. However there may be cases where Java cannot infer (deduce) the type argument. Then we supply it explicitly using the syntax from your question:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(null);


Of course we may also supply it even though it is not necessary if we think it helps readability or for whatever reason:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


In your question you seem to be calling the java.util.ArrayList constructor. That constructor is not generic (only the ArrayList class as a whole is, that’s something else). Why Java allows you to supply type arguments in the call when they are not used, I don’t know, but it does. My Eclipse gives me a warning:




Unused type arguments for the non generic constructor ArrayList() of
type ArrayList; it should not be parameterized with arguments




But it’s not an error, and the program runs fine (I additionally get warnings about missing type arguments for List and ArrayList, but that again is a different story).




Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as
putting them after the type? If not, what does the different
positioning mean?




No, it’s different. The usual type argument/s after the type (ArrayList<Integer>) are for the generic class. The type arguments before are for the * constructor*.



The two forms may also be combined:



 List<Integer> list = new <String, Long>ArrayList<Integer>();


I would consider this a bit more correct since we can now see that the list stores Integer objects (I’d still prefer to leave out the meaningless <String, Long>, of course).




Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?




First, if you supply type arguments before the type, you should supply the correct number for the constructor, not for the class, so it hasn’t got anything to do with how many type arguments the ArrayList class has got. That really means that in this case you shouldn’t supply any since the constructor doesn’t take type arguments (it’s not generic). When you supply some anyway, they are ignored, which is why it doesn’t matter how many or how few you supply (I repeat, I don’t know why Java allows you to supply them meaninglessly).






share|improve this answer

























  • But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

    – jaspreet
    19 mins ago











  • Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

    – Ole V.V.
    9 mins ago













5












5








5







This is unusual alright, but fully valid Java. A class may have a generic constructor, for example:



public class TypeWithGenericConstructor 

public <T> TypeWithGenericConstructor(T arg)
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub





I suppose that more often than not we don’t need to make the type argument explicit. For example:



 new TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


Now T is clearly LocalDate. However there may be cases where Java cannot infer (deduce) the type argument. Then we supply it explicitly using the syntax from your question:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(null);


Of course we may also supply it even though it is not necessary if we think it helps readability or for whatever reason:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


In your question you seem to be calling the java.util.ArrayList constructor. That constructor is not generic (only the ArrayList class as a whole is, that’s something else). Why Java allows you to supply type arguments in the call when they are not used, I don’t know, but it does. My Eclipse gives me a warning:




Unused type arguments for the non generic constructor ArrayList() of
type ArrayList; it should not be parameterized with arguments




But it’s not an error, and the program runs fine (I additionally get warnings about missing type arguments for List and ArrayList, but that again is a different story).




Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as
putting them after the type? If not, what does the different
positioning mean?




No, it’s different. The usual type argument/s after the type (ArrayList<Integer>) are for the generic class. The type arguments before are for the * constructor*.



The two forms may also be combined:



 List<Integer> list = new <String, Long>ArrayList<Integer>();


I would consider this a bit more correct since we can now see that the list stores Integer objects (I’d still prefer to leave out the meaningless <String, Long>, of course).




Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?




First, if you supply type arguments before the type, you should supply the correct number for the constructor, not for the class, so it hasn’t got anything to do with how many type arguments the ArrayList class has got. That really means that in this case you shouldn’t supply any since the constructor doesn’t take type arguments (it’s not generic). When you supply some anyway, they are ignored, which is why it doesn’t matter how many or how few you supply (I repeat, I don’t know why Java allows you to supply them meaninglessly).






share|improve this answer















This is unusual alright, but fully valid Java. A class may have a generic constructor, for example:



public class TypeWithGenericConstructor 

public <T> TypeWithGenericConstructor(T arg)
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub





I suppose that more often than not we don’t need to make the type argument explicit. For example:



 new TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


Now T is clearly LocalDate. However there may be cases where Java cannot infer (deduce) the type argument. Then we supply it explicitly using the syntax from your question:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(null);


Of course we may also supply it even though it is not necessary if we think it helps readability or for whatever reason:



 new <LocalDate>TypeWithGenericConstructor(LocalDate.now(ZoneId.systemDefault()));


In your question you seem to be calling the java.util.ArrayList constructor. That constructor is not generic (only the ArrayList class as a whole is, that’s something else). Why Java allows you to supply type arguments in the call when they are not used, I don’t know, but it does. My Eclipse gives me a warning:




Unused type arguments for the non generic constructor ArrayList() of
type ArrayList; it should not be parameterized with arguments




But it’s not an error, and the program runs fine (I additionally get warnings about missing type arguments for List and ArrayList, but that again is a different story).




Does the positioning of the type arguments have the same meaning as
putting them after the type? If not, what does the different
positioning mean?




No, it’s different. The usual type argument/s after the type (ArrayList<Integer>) are for the generic class. The type arguments before are for the * constructor*.



The two forms may also be combined:



 List<Integer> list = new <String, Long>ArrayList<Integer>();


I would consider this a bit more correct since we can now see that the list stores Integer objects (I’d still prefer to leave out the meaningless <String, Long>, of course).




Why is it legal to have 2 type arguments when ArrayList only has 1?




First, if you supply type arguments before the type, you should supply the correct number for the constructor, not for the class, so it hasn’t got anything to do with how many type arguments the ArrayList class has got. That really means that in this case you shouldn’t supply any since the constructor doesn’t take type arguments (it’s not generic). When you supply some anyway, they are ignored, which is why it doesn’t matter how many or how few you supply (I repeat, I don’t know why Java allows you to supply them meaninglessly).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 11 mins ago

























answered 35 mins ago









Ole V.V.Ole V.V.

31.2k63956




31.2k63956












  • But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

    – jaspreet
    19 mins ago











  • Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

    – Ole V.V.
    9 mins ago

















  • But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

    – jaspreet
    19 mins ago











  • Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

    – Ole V.V.
    9 mins ago
















But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

– jaspreet
19 mins ago





But how it is allowing 2 arguments <String, Long>.The list will allow storing which type of data?

– jaspreet
19 mins ago













Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

– Ole V.V.
9 mins ago





Thanks for asking, @jaspreet. Please see my edit.

– Ole V.V.
9 mins 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%2f55330697%2fjava-what-do-constructor-type-arguments-mean-when-placed-before-the-type%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

Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

Mortes em março de 2019 Referências Menu de navegação«Zhores Alferov, Nobel de Física bielorrusso, morre aos 88 anos - Ciência»«Fallece Rafael Torija, o bispo emérito de Ciudad Real»«Peter Hurford dies at 88»«Keith Flint, vocalista do The Prodigy, morre aos 49 anos»«Luke Perry, ator de 'Barrados no baile' e 'Riverdale', morre aos 52 anos»«Former Rangers and Scotland captain Eric Caldow dies, aged 84»«Morreu, aos 61 anos, a antiga lenda do wrestling King Kong Bundy»«Fallece el actor y director teatral Abraham Stavans»«In Memoriam Guillaume Faye»«Sidney Sheinberg, a Force Behind Universal and Spielberg, Is Dead at 84»«Carmine Persico, Colombo Crime Family Boss, Is Dead at 85»«Dirigent Michael Gielen gestorben»«Ciclista tricampeã mundial e prata na Rio 2016 é encontrada morta em casa aos 23 anos»«Pagan Community Notes: Raven Grimassi dies, Indianapolis pop-up event cancelled, Circle Sanctuary announces new podcast, and more!»«Hal Blaine, Wrecking Crew Drummer, Dies at 90»«Morre Coutinho, que editou dupla lendária com Pelé no Santos»«Cantor Demétrius, ídolo da Jovem Guarda, morre em SP»«Ex-presidente do Vasco, Eurico Miranda morre no Rio de Janeiro»«Bronze no Mundial de basquete de 1971, Laís Elena morre aos 76 anos»«Diretor de Corridas da F1, Charlie Whiting morre aos 66 anos às vésperas do GP da Austrália»«Morreu o cardeal Danneels, da Bélgica»«Morreu o cartoonista Augusto Cid»«Morreu a atriz Maria Isabel de Lizandra, de "Vale Tudo" e novelas da Tupi»«WS Merwin, prize-winning poet of nature, dies at 91»«Atriz Márcia Real morre em São Paulo aos 88 anos»«Mauritanie: décès de l'ancien président Mohamed Mahmoud ould Louly»«Morreu Dick Dale, o rei da surf guitar e de "Pulp Fiction"»«Falleció Víctor Genes»«João Carlos Marinho, autor de 'O Gênio do Crime', morre em SP»«Legendary Horror Director and SFX Artist John Carl Buechler Dies at 66»«Morre em Salvador a religiosa Makota Valdina»«مرگ بازیکن‌ سابق نساجی بر اثر سقوط سنگ در مازندران»«Domingos Oliveira morre no Rio»«Morre Airton Ravagniani, ex-São Paulo, Fla, Vasco, Grêmio e Sport - Notícias»«Morre o escritor Flavio Moreira da Costa»«Larry Cohen, Writer-Director of 'It's Alive' and 'Hell Up in Harlem,' Dies at 77»«Scott Walker, experimental singer-songwriter, dead at 76»«Joseph Pilato, Day of the Dead Star and Horror Favorite, Dies at 70»«Sheffield United set to pay tribute to legendary goalkeeper Ted Burgin who has died at 91»«Morre Rafael Henzel, sobrevivente de acidente aéreo da Chapecoense»«Morre Valery Bykovsky, um dos primeiros cosmonautas da União Soviética»«Agnès Varda, cineasta da Nouvelle Vague, morre aos 90 anos»«Agnès Varda, cineasta francesa, morre aos 90 anos»«Tania Mallet, James Bond Actress and Helen Mirren's Cousin, Dies at 77»e