• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Array Object Question

 
Greenhorn
Posts: 21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Given the following 3 classes Animal, Dog, and Array in 3 separate files, I compiled them and ran only the Array class with
the following results:
line 42 output: protected Animal instance variable i = 1
line 46 output: Dog element = pkgb.Dog@45a877

My Questions:
1. Why wouldn't line 48 compile without the cast when line 42 did not need one?
2. why does line 50 produce a compile error without the "//" but line 42 seems to run the
Dog initialization block without errors?


 
Sheriff
Posts: 22785
131
Eclipse IDE Spring VI Editor Chrome Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Edward Lawrence wrote:1. Why wouldn't line 48 compile without the cast when line 42 did not need one?


Because one is upcasting and the other is downcasting.

2. why does line 50 produce a compile error without the "//" but line 42 seems to run the Dog initialization block without errors?


Because Animal's "i" is protected, which means it can only be accessed from subclasses of Animal or classes in the same package as Animal. Since your Array class is neither it cannot access dog.i.
 
Edward Lawrence
Greenhorn
Posts: 21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This is just to very and understand better.
When I created the reference in the array to the Dog object I was implicitly downcasting. Am I correct?

Another clarification / Question
So what is the function of the element I am using on line 48 to create the new Dog object?
Does that element point to a Dog or in reality to an Animal?
In other words I do not quite understand the statement on line 48 although I authored it. Please elaborate a little more for
greenhorn Edward Lawrence.
 
Edward Lawrence
Greenhorn
Posts: 21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just wanted to add this if I remember correctly. When compiling, the compiler thinks sees the element as an Animal and not a Dog. Am I correct?
 
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic