Java Quiz

public class Overload {
    public static void main(String args[]) {
        int result = foo(new B(), new B());
        System.out.println(result);
    }

    public static int foo(A a, B b) { return 1; }
    public static int foo(B b, A a) throws Exception { return 2; }

    static class A { }
    static class B extends A { }
}

Without using a compiler (using the JLS and JLS report is allowed), answer the following:

  1. Does this code compile?
  2. If yes - what is the result from running the program?
  3. If no - why not? List all errors.

Answers on a postcard.

Comments (4)

mChicago

No. The compiler will be unable to work out unique signatures (or whatever they're called) for the methods.

April 11, 2007, 4:11 p.m. #
lamby

Mmm, correct. The "throws Exception" was just to confuse people - although the defined exception sometimes feels like part of the signature.

So the code is incorrect because of the presence of "override-equivalent signatures." (See
http://java.su… for a more formal treatment)

April 11, 2007, 10:15 p.m. #
mChicago

Sorry, I am struggling to work out where an exception would be considered to be part of the signature - that would suggest that the following two would be a "good" compile:
<code>
private int foo ( int a ) { return 1; }
private int foo ( int a ) throws Exception { return 1; }</code>

Unfortunatly, Ive found a problem in C#, which is legal in terms of the language, but obviously bad:
<code>
class foo {
public int bar(){
return 1;
}
public static int bar() {
return 2;
}
}</code>

In this instance, when coding inside a function in the class, static and non-static functions can both be referenced without a this. However, in this case, it is unclear which one actually would run:
<code>
this.bar() == 1;
foo.bar() == 2;
bar() -> ?</code>

What is interesting, is that the compiler treats the two sets of results differently, and therefore the signatures do not need to be similar. The static could return a string, and the non-static an int.

Fun.

April 12, 2007, 8:56 a.m. #
manish

code will not complie

June 28, 2007, 3:43 a.m. #