X-Received: by 10.66.72.232 with SMTP id g8mr7875803pav.23.1357521898198; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.106.225 with SMTP id gx1mr1330990igb.8.1357521898138; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!f6no10655832pbd.1!news-out.google.com!s9ni88763pbb.0!nntp.google.com!b8no3504987pbd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:24:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <919a1e82-bb3d-409b-a3c6-a6fe8e09b1c5@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214
References: <public-20130106091348@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <a507821e-173c-447f-a310-bb98f425f097@googlegroups.com> <e1778471-c18f-46e6-9a7e-d7d312d684c3@googlegroups.com> <bdc51fed-5efc-4380-8162-6f4309155239@googlegroups.com> <8889b1c7-4198-4d54-8fbc-8fa0ef8608a3@googlegroups.com> <919a1e82-bb3d-409b-a3c6-a6fe8e09b1c5@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <53b5b13b-4baa-4c64-bead-404bf0073da4@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: "Hello world!" without a public class?
From: Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:24:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:21095

Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> On inner classes:
> ...
> (yes it does get compiled into something very close to inner classes [not=
 nested if I remember the jargon correctly]

Terminology:  A nested type (class or interface) is a member of another typ=
e.=20
(JLS =A78.5)

There are two kinds of nested classes, static and inner, per the JLS.=20
By definition, an inner class is a nested class whose declaration does not =
include the keyword 'static'.

"The static keyword may modify the declaration of a member type C within th=
e=20
body of a non-inner class or interface T. Its effect is to declare that C i=
s=20
not an inner class."
(JLS =A78.5.1)

>  but no where near as ugly):

These get compiled exactly into inner classes.

> Foo.java:
>=20
> public enum Foo
> {
>     ACK {

@Override

>        public void doSomething(SomeClass arg)
>        {
>           do what ever for ACK
>        }
>     },
> ...
> }

In this case the enum, itself a cover for compiler-supported boilerplate fo=
r a
class with static constant members, also covers for the boilerplate of inne=
r=20
class declarations in those constants.

Much as the lambdas I mentioned earlier cover for the boilerplate of inner-
class declarations of SAM interface implementations.

Neither of these work without inner classes, so your proposal to eliminate=
=20
inner classes would break them.

> Fred.java:
> ...
> and voila much more readable then putting a whole rats nest of stuff in t=
he initialization of arr

Perhaps, but it doesn't prove the point, because it relies on inner classes=
.

And your claim that it's "much more readable" is not really proven.

public abstract class Bar
{
  private final String rep;
  abstract public void doSomething(Some arg);
  private Bar(String r)=20
  {
    this.rep =3D r;
  }
  public static final BAR =3D new Bar("BAR")=20
    {
      @Override
      public void doSomething(Some arg)=20
      {=20
    //    do what ever for BAR=20
      }=20
    };
}

The only part of the anonymous class declaration that differs is the=20

new Bar("BAR")=20

Not even "much" different in readability, let alone "very much".

--=20
Lew