Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33557

Re: Assignment or Initialization?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Assignment or Initialization?
Date	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:46:36 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	29
Message-ID	<n8p1pp$81h$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<assignment-20160201130855@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <n8oa1b$tq9$2@dont-email.me> <n8ockg$b4a$1@dont-email.me> <n8of62$ku9$1@dont-email.me> <n8oh2r$svq$1@dont-email.me> <n8oufo$dm7$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host	ANasIS7Js9OyLQwgloeBLQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:33557

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2/1/2016 7:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 4:03 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 2/1/2016 3:31 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
>>> public class test {
>>>       final int i;
>>>
>>>       public test() {
>>>           i = 666;
>>>       }
>>> }
>>>
>>> is perfectly legal and used all the time (by me anyway).
>>
>>      That's the case 4ndre4  described: Initialization of a final
>> field in a constructor.  But 4ndre4 seemed to be saying that it's
>> the only legal case, and my point was that there are others.
>>
>
> Actually, I believe it is *assignment* in the constructor.
> Initialization would be :
>
>    public test() : i(666) {
>    }

The above is not in any way valid Java, so definitely no.

Arne

Thread

Re: Assignment or Initialization? 4ndre4 <4ndre4@4ndre4.com.invalid> - 2016-02-01 19:03 +0000
  Re: Assignment or Initialization? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-02-01 14:47 -0500
    Re: Assignment or Initialization? Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:31 -0800
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:03 -0500
        Re: Assignment or Initialization? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-01 19:52 -0500
          Re: Assignment or Initialization? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-01 20:46 -0500
          Re: Assignment or Initialization? Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2016-02-01 23:39 -0500
            Re: Assignment or Initialization? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-02 09:14 -0500
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? 4ndre4 <4ndre4@4ndre4.com.invalid> - 2016-02-02 19:25 +0000
  Re: Assignment or Initialization? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:13 -0800
    Re: Assignment or Initialization? 4ndre4 <4ndre4@4ndre4.com.invalid> - 2016-02-02 19:26 +0000
  Re: Assignment or Initialization? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-01 20:55 -0500
    Re: Assignment or Initialization? 4ndre4 <4ndre4@4ndre4.com.invalid> - 2016-02-02 19:29 +0000
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 11:44 -0800
        Re: Assignment or Initialization? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:16 -0800
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:15 -0800
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-02 18:13 -0500
      Re: Assignment or Initialization? Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-03 12:10 +0100
        Re: Assignment or Initialization? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:14 -0800
          Re: Assignment or Initialization? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:39 -0800
  Re: Assignment or Initialization? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:32 -0800
    Re: Assignment or Initialization? 4ndre4 <4ndre4@4ndre4.com.invalid> - 2016-02-02 19:22 +0000
  Re: Assignment or Initialization? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2016-02-03 09:03 -0800

csiph-web