Hi Oliver,
Just out of interest, is the case you marked,
> setObject(i, (Integer)null); // (*)
equivalent to
Integer someInteger = null;
setObject(i, someInteger);
?
From what I remember of my code I'd be surprised if I was doing either as
this case would use setInt instead of setObject. I don't think I use
setObject anywhere.
I would ask the question then, is there any situation where there is no
alternative to the insufficiantly typed calls you listed? From my limited
view of the situation, my feeling is that there isn't, so I would say that
such calls should produce errors rather than some kind of default behavour.
Cheers
Iain