Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:00:06 +1100 From: "Joe Shevland" <shevlandj@kpi.com.au> To: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>, "Todd Enersen" <tee@fireclick.com> Cc: <freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: possible bug in port of javac Message-ID: <NKEFKGEPLECBEFCCIDDJCEGLCDAA.shevlandj@kpi.com.au> In-Reply-To: <005d01c0b341$5cedac20$1d750140@cascade>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This struck me as odd too, but after reading the postings I compiled a small test on Windows JDK 1.3 that seemed to allow the initialisation to occur in the constructor. Subclasses still won't be able to access/alter the variable by overriding the constructor, but it kind of goes against the meaning of 'final' to me.
I wonder did Todd add the initialisation in _every_ constructor?
e.g.
public class test {
private final int someint;
public test() { someint = 5; }
}
was allowed which surprised me. The FreeBSD JDK 1.1.8 allowed it also.
Regards,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG [mailto:owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Thomas T. Veldhouse
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:31 PM
To: Todd Enersen
Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: possible bug in port of javac
When you declare something final, aren't you supposed to supply an initializer? I believe this is analgous to const int m_maxValuesPerName = 10 in C++.
private final int m_maxValuesPerName = 10;
I believe this is analgous to const int m_maxValuesPerName = 10; in C++.
Tom Veldhouse
veldy@veldy.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NKEFKGEPLECBEFCCIDDJCEGLCDAA.shevlandj>