John Natto wrote:Could someone please explain me the concept behind the following statements?
Not much to explain by way of concept; these snippets are declarations, assignments, method calls, and possibly instantiation of a new object.
1. A a1 = new A1
Declares variable a1 to be an instance of class A.
If A is an interface, declares a1 to be a reference to an object that implements A.
The right hand side is not valid Java. Valid Java would be
new A1() where A1() is a no-argument constructor of the class A1.
A1 must be a subclass of A if A is a class.
A1 must be a class that implements A if A is an interface.
If the right hand side of the assignment operator (the = sign) were valid, it would assign that value to the variable a1
The value assigned would be a reference to an object.
2. a1.test()
Calls the method
test() of the object referenced by a1. The method takes no parameters.
3. a1.test(90)
Calls the method
test() of the object referenced by a1. This test() method declares one parameter which has a type that is compatible with the numeric constant 90 (e.g. int, long, Integer, etc.)
4. B b1 = null
Declares variable b1 to be an instance of B, if B is a class.
If B is an interface, declares b1 to be a reference to an object that implements B.
Assigns
null to b1, meaning b1 does not refer to any object, even though it can.
5. Employee(Job [x])
Assuming standard Java coding conventions are followed, this is not valid Java. This looks like a constructor but you need the
new keyword before the constructor call.
Also, the name "Job" does not follow not the standard naming convention for variables. However, it's not illegal syntax. At any rate, if Job is an array variable, then Job[x] refers to the x-th element of Job. Valid values of x start at 0 and end at (Job.length - 1)
6. return abc;
exits the current method and returns the value held by variable abc to the caller.
