Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!feeder2.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.saix.net!news.saix.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:41:10 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Question re testing constructor
References: <Xns9FB3682A7DBF6jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <jblc1i$n6u$1@dont-email.me> <null-20111206201830@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <Xns9FB3B1EDDE309vaj4088ianshef@138.125.254.103> <unreachable-code-20111207032302@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
From: ilAn <idonot@wantspam.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:41:06 +0200
Message-ID: <m2iplsql6l.fsf@wantspam.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M0Xe5JPYRHQ9hIub2i66YKgiepk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/9.9.1)
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-44mxqR+6Oh2uGZbfMfdBEPn/VqOrgxsyl7hZ4kZhZGaRSeP5HFxC/HZrf3C+PGWPZraG828qFq4+o5n!KLbwI2WBMIQApj7c0JYGE84Ikq1TEOyMeiHaZu6wc3+0qnqcfQxPpkg5A3c=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2444
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:10596

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Ian Shef <invalid@avoiding.spam> writes:
>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote in news:null-20111206201830
>>@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de:
>>>If the Java compiler is so smart at detecting null values,
>>>why does he not also give an error on code like:
>>>(( java.io.PrintStream )null ).println()
>>>?
>>Short answer:  Because the JLS says so.  (see the third edition, paragraph 
>>15.16 where it is explained that most casts are handled at run time).
>
>   Something similar:
>
>   It is difficult for me to forecast an »unreachable statement« error.
>   For example, I would have expected such an error for
>
> public class Main
> { public static void main( final java.lang.String[] args )
>   { java.lang.System.out.println( "alpha3" );
>     if( true )return;
>     java.lang.System.out.println( "beta3" ); }}
>
>   , but did *not* get one, however, the compiler knows that the
>   beta3 statement *is* unreachable, because he does not care to
>   compile it.
>
>   Omitting the »if( true )« will give an »unreachable statement«
>   error.

I find that quite useful, when I am debugging and want to exclude a
bunch of code.. and still compile it.

--
ilAn