Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.help
Subject: Re: <identifier> expected error
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:10:11 -0700
Organization: Canadian Mind Products
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <ii7q779k5782v8amlv5ersmm73hapv6964@4ax.com>
References: <c4db596b-eb82-4d41-bfd6-372b4037bfca@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> <seko77pvl58ld3n7kbithfe65gtsrka76h@4ax.com> <7371102.30.1316805058374.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prec11>
Reply-To: Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RCd/Ul4tyxGUBII8WGwa5g.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.help:1123

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>  public interface NumList {
>    void printArray();
>  }
>
>The coaching might have been phrased, "Method declarations must specify the return type, or 'void' if nothing is to be returned."
>
>So I don't see "executable code" in the declaration, but "method defined without return type".  Either way it needs to be fixed.

I think "executable code" is one of several ways of interpreting the
error. 

printArray();

From a bottom up point of view looks to it like an attempt to invoke
the method printArray() which may be undefined.

I agree though your interpretation of the error fits better with what
the author intended.  Someday compilers might expend effort to decide
how to interpret errors.  I wrote
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/compileerrormessages.html
to at least give programmers several alternate interpretations
to choose from.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
It should not be considered an error when the user starts something
already started or stops something already stopped. This applies
to browsers, services, editors... It is inexcusable to 
punish the user by requiring some elaborate sequence to atone,
e.g. open the task editor, find and kill some processes.