Tyler,
The code you posted had several problems... the solution I am posting is only one of several possible solutions, and I hope it does what you originally intended

:
<code>
class AddNum {
private static void SumReturn(int d, int e) {
if ((d > 0) && (e > 0))
{
int f = d + e;
System.out.println(d + " + " + e + " = " + f);
}
}
public static void main(
String args[])
{
int d = Integer.parseInt( args[0] );
int e = Integer.parseInt( args[1] );
AddNum a = new AddNum();
a.SumReturn( d, e );
}
}
</code>
Hopefully the code above came out and does not look like gobbledy-gook... Anyway, lets go over the changes...
1.) I moved the integer declarations of d and e into the main() method. I did this because the values in args[] are not available until after you call these values "args" in main.
2.) Next, I had to add a return type to the SumReturn method. All methods need some sort of return type even if they don't actually return anything, so I made this method "void" - a special return type which means that this method doesn't return a value. (You could have had it return the sum of the two values just as easily, by making the return type "int" and putting "return f;" in the method, but since you were printing out the values inside the method this didn't need to be done.) By the way, this method doesn't have to be static since you create an instance of this class in main. ( This probably doesn't make sense now, but it will as you learn more about what "static" does.)
3.) I took the "return this;" line out of the SumReturn method. Since I changed its return type to void, it does not need a return statement now.
4.) In the main method I changed the line "a.SumReturn();" to "a.SumReturn( d, e );". This passes the variables d and e into the SumReturn method. This is needed since the SumReturn method expects two integer values to be passed into it, since the method was declared as "private static void SumReturn( int d, int e )".
As you practice more Java programming you will learn more of this, but I hope this helps you out!
- Nathan
P.S. - Dang! Michael beat me to the explanation!

(and I forgot to explain the bit about concatenation, too...

)
[This message has been edited by Nathan Pruett (edited December 05, 2000).]