RHE and inner classes

[Vladimir Kositsky]

Hi everybody!
Definition of declaration context of local and anonimous classes differ in Flanagan "Java in nutshall" from Mughal.
In first described that local and anonimous classes can not be static but Mughal said that they could be in static context.
I just wondering what written about this in RHE?
Quote about this will be highly appreciated.
Thanx in advance

[bill bozeman]

I don't think they are differing. I think the first one says that local and anonymous classes cannot be static, which is true. And the second one says while the inner class (local and anonymous) cannot be static, they can be created in static methods.
Bill

[George Toronto]

Originally posted by Vladimir Kositsky:
Hi everybody!
Definition of declaration context of local and anonimous classes differ in Flanagan "Java in nutshall" from Mughal.
In first described that local and anonimous classes can not be static but Mughal said that they could be in static context.
I just wondering what written about this in RHE?
Quote about this will be highly appreciated.
Thanx in advance

ya, i think bill is right.
hi, Vladimir
plz pay attention to understand the actuall meaning of "static context". bill give you an explaination.

[Vladimir Kositsky]

Bill, George
Thank for answer
Mughal definetly using statements as static local or anonymous classes, meaning static by context.
Again , there is no unification in inner classes terminology.
In purpose of SJPC exam what will be an answer for question of existance of static anonymous innner classes?
According to Mughal is "true".
If there is any ambiguity in Mughal book, so that is only one.