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
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).]
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 (�126.96.36.199). 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 (�188.8.131.52)." 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