Mistake(I think) on K&B's 1.4 book

[Ja vardhan]

Friends,

from K&B's 1.4 book: under chapter 3, under Passing variables into methods section they have described about shadowing concept. there we have the code:

class Foo {
int size = 7;
static void changeIt(int size) {
size = size + 200;
System.out.println("size in changeIt is " + size);
}
public static void main (String [] args) {
Foo f = new Foo();
System.out.println("size = " + size);
changeIt(size);
System.out.println("size after changeIt is " + size);
}
}  

Here 'size' is not a static variable, but they are accessign in static context. Is this wrong or right somehow?

Thanks.

[Pran Pal]

I think you are right, "size" cannot be accessed in:

System.out.println("size = " + size);
changeIt(size);
System.out.println("size after changeIt is " + size);   

[Huifen Lu]

Yeah, the object reference f should be attached to the variable size, that's object created for. I think the part of the code meant to be like this:

public static void main (String [] args) {
Foo f = new Foo();
System.out.println("size = " + f.size);
changeIt(f.size);
System.out.println("size after changeIt is " + f.size);
}    

[sandeep biradar]

yes u r correct

static code cannot be accessed in non static block

[Jim Yingst]

This is already in the errata:

Page 187,Second line of code2/07/03
 
Change:
int size = 7;
To:
static int size = 7;

[sandeep]: static code cannot be accessed in non static block

Other way around. Static code can be accesed in a non-static block. However non-static code cannot be directly accessed from a static block. Unless you create an instance and use that to access the nonstatic code.

[Ja vardhan]

Just I asked to clarify my dowt, I dont mean to point out the error.
Initially I thought this program is wrong, but again I thought there might be some hidden concept behind this, I might be wrong because its from great authors; so I posted here. Now I understood, it was printign mistake, everyone commits mistakes sometimes

Sorry, if I am referrig to the one which already exisiting in Errata.

Thanks for your replies folks.