Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25512 > unrolled thread

Re: Why “new”?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 21:48 -0800

#25512 — Re: Why “new”?

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message 
news:iiihfu$9pf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <iiicja$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.

You're either trolling or simply not paying attention.  In either case, I'm 
done. 

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web