JQplus QID:953582884020

[George Dee-Brown]

JQplus is contradicting Mughal!
Its states the following as being a correct option:
"Anonymous classes cannot be static"
Mughal P243 states "The context determines whether the anomymous class is static" - meaning it can be static if defined in a static context (ie static method).
Any opinions? My money is with Mughal...
regards,
George

[Jane Griscti]

According to the JLS an anonymous class is never static.

JLS �15.9.5
An anonymous class is always an inner class (�8.1.2); it is never static (�8.1.1, �8.5.2).

They can be declared in a static context however that does not make them static classes.
------------------
Jane Griscti
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java� 2 Platform
[This message has been edited by Jane Griscti (edited July 02, 2001).]

[Chuck Lorenz]

Khalid Mughal posted the following on July 09, 2001 in the Programmers Certification Study forum in response to a similar question.
JLS quote:
"An anonymous class is never abstract (�8.1.1.1). An anonymous class is always an inner class (�8.1.2); it is never static (�8.1.1, �8.5.2). An anonymous class is always implicitly final (�8.1.1.2)."
If you look carefully you will see that the word "static" refers to the keyword in the above quote. I choose to interpret this as meaning that an anonymous class cannot be declared static (<--- keyword).
In our explanation, we are using the word "static" in the non-keyword sense of the word to indicate "an anonymous class declaration in a static context". As the examples presented in this discussion have shown, an anonymous class declared in a static context cannot access instance members in its enclosing context. This is the point we wanted to get across and the fact that such a class is instantiated without any outer object.
We will make sure that such confusion about terminology does not arise in any future edition of the book.
wbw,
khalid mughal