Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25795

Re: Why “new”?

From	Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why “new”?
Followup-To	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	2011-02-05 16:51 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Message-ID	<iiihfu$9pf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <4d4ca255$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iii8s4$4tt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iii9dq$3pr$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iiiaia$5t9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iiicja$epf$1@news.eternal-september.org>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <iiicja$epf$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Schilling wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:iiiaia$5t9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <iii9dq$3pr$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Schilling
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:iii8s4$4tt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>
>>>> You already have that confusion, when every method declaration in Java
>>>> is effectively virtual, unlike C++.
>>>
>>> That's not true, you know.
>>
>> No, I don’t know. Please explain.
> 
> Private methods are not virtual, nor are static methods.

Private methods can still be virtual—see pages 189-190 of the C++ spec for 
an example. And I can’t see any prohibition in section 10.3 (“Virtual 
functions”) against them being static.

Like I said, in Java, effectively all methods are virtual.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 18:27 -0800
  Re: Why “new”? Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-02-05 18:04 +0100
  Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-05 02:49 -0800
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:14 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 20:42 +1300
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:46 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:38 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:13 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2011-02-05 08:31 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:08 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:44 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:07 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 16:51 +1300
    Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 23:06 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 19:45 +1300
      Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:32 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 23:40 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:15 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2011-02-04 21:31 -0800
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 01:25 -0500

csiph-web