Re: Command-line arg
- From: Lew <lew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:51:41 -0400
Wayne <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Technical specifications could be more precise and either use a specific import declaration or »java.lang.String«:
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
The JLS mentions this in §1.2 Notation:
So not only is Wayne right, but Sun agreed and made sure that the technical specification was precise, even before Wayne suggested that they do so. How very proactive of them.
Throughout this book we refer to classes and interfaces drawn from the Java and Java 2 platforms. Whenever we refer to a class or interface which is not defined in an example in this book using a single identifier N, the intended reference is to the class or interface named N in the package java.lang. We use the canonical name (§6.7) for classes or interfaces from packages other than java.lang.
Thus the class `String' implicitly refers to `java.lang.String'
This might be a mere coincidence, but in Java code one need never explicitly import java.lang either.
--
Lew
.
- References:
- Command-line arg
- From: joe
- Re: Command-line arg
- From: Wayne
- Re: Command-line arg
- From: Mark Space
- Re: Command-line arg
- From: Wayne
- Re: Command-line arg
- From: Joshua Cranmer
- Command-line arg
- Prev by Date: Re: DI = XML parser that can resolve references?
- Next by Date: Re: pixel components
- Previous by thread: Re: Command-line arg
- Next by thread: Re: Command-line arg
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|