SCJP 1.5 implicit cast of long to double

[Harry Henriques]

Hi,

I was preparing for the SCJP using K & B SCJP 1.5 Certification textbook. Page 184 in Chapter 3 states the following:

double d = 100L; // Implicit cast
In the preceding statement, a double is initialized with a long value (as denoted by
the L after the numeric value). No cast is needed in this case because a double can
hold every piece of information that a long can store.

I wrote the following snippet to test this assertion using an implicit cast from "long" to "double":

 class Test{
public static void main(String [] args)
long a = Long.parseLong("0111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110", 2 );
double b = a;
System.out.println(b);
}
}

I got the follwing output after successfully compiling the program.

C:\TEMP>java test
9.223372036854776E18

This converts to 9,223,372,036,854,776,000. Obviously, the binary number above doesn't end in three zeros. It appears that the "double" value has lost precision. I don't know if this is an automatic rounding error in the System.out.println() method, or whether the double has indeed lost precision. How can a 64-bit "long" fit into a 64-bit "double" that has a mantissa and exponent?

Thanks.

[Harry Henriques]

I made an error when I defined a long integer with value 2^63 - 1. I have corrected my mistake. Sorry.

class Test{   
public static void main(String [] args)   
long a = Long.parseLong("0111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111", 2 );   
double b = a;   
System.out.println(b);   
}   
}  

C:\TEMP>java test
9.223372036854776E18 == 9,223,372,036,854,776,000

[Henry Wong]

No cast is needed in this case because a double can hold every piece of information that a long can store.

This statement isn't really true. Java will allow the implicit cast because the range of a long is smaller than (and within) the range of a double. Some precision will be lost, but precision lost is allowed for an implicit cast.

Henry

[Rob Prime]

Which is odd because the compiler complains about a "possible loss of precision" when trying to implicitly convert a long to an int, yet this exact same possible loss of permission is allowed when converting from a long to a float or double.

They really should change that error message: "possible range violation" seems better.

[Jesper Young]

Moving to the SCJP forum.