Question 19, Chapter 6 Discussion

[Fabricio Yamamoto]

Shouldn't it be correct?



It says:

You Answered Incorrectly.
The Reptile class defines a constructor, but it is not a no-argument constructor. Therefore, the Lizard constructor must explicitly call super(), passing in an int value. For this reason, line 9 does not compile, and option F is the correct answer. If the Lizard class were corrected to call the appropriate super() constructor, then the program would print BALizard at runtime, with the static initializer running first, followed by the instance initializer, and finally the method call using the overridden method.

Because if I just erase line 3 the compilation goes well.

I mean, it could be it's ambiguous. Maybe a better option would be:

It will throw a compilation error at line 3.

And then it would be clearer and the correct response would be F for sure.

[Mikalai Zaikin]

I fully agree with you. Option E is correct, and option F is wrong.

P.S. Welcome to CodeRanch !

[Fabricio Yamamoto]

Mikalai Zaikin wrote:I fully agree with you. Option E is correct, and option F is wrong.

P.S. Welcome to CodeRanch !

Thanks!

[Ankit Garg]

I agree with you Fabricio, the question is ambiguous. The compilation error is not on line 3, but to me the error/mistake is more on line 9 where hatch is not passed to super constructor.

[Mike Simmons]

Yeah - the problem is that line 3 and line 9 are not compatible.  One or the other needs to change.  But from the compiler's perspective, line 3 is fine on its own, but when it gets to line 9, that's when the incompatibility is discovered.  So line 9 gets the blame.