Win a copy of Mesos in Action this week in the Cloud/Virtualizaton forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Rules Roundup Q45

 
Jeff L.
Greenhorn
Posts: 8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I assume the questions are the same, but to clarify, I am using the beta of the second version.
The question asks:
45) Integer literals are always what size?
The answer given is:
Integer literals are always treated as 32-bit ints.
However, this is disproven by the following code: attempting to assign an integer literal to a byte works just fine, while attempting to assign the same integer causes a problem. I think the correct response is, "Integer literals are always treated as the smallest integer-type that can hold them without an overflow."
------------->
byte b = 5; //This works just fine!
int xx = 5;
b = xx; //This causes an error!
 
Jeff L.
Greenhorn
Posts: 8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I found this thread after I posted.
http://www.coderanch.com/t/190639/java-programmer-SCJP/certification/integer-literals
Note that I searched for Integer literal before posting, but I restricted my search to the mock exam, and missed the discussion elsewhere.
This proves that my surmise about byte is wrong, but int is a little misleading. Actually, it treats Integer literals as final ints rather than unadorned ints. (Ok, I'm splitting hairs so at least I'm not completely wrong... )
Anyway, I thought I'd share the results.
 
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff
Posts: 11962
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jeff,
Your display name does not comply with our naming policy so I'll have to ask you to change it.
Thanks.
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic