int i = 10;
i++; // it ok primitive value can use ++.
Integer integer = 10;
integer++; // how it can use ++
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass++; // then why myclass can't use ++.
C++ has the ability to overload operators. The Java language considers this to be open to too much abuse (overloaded operators can be obfuscating) so it was never incorporated into Java.
Therefore, you can't write myClass++ as the syntax is not available to specify that operation.
But ++ does work on a selection of non-primitives. The mechanism exploited is called autoboxing. (Essentially the underlying plain-old-data type is extracted from the boxed type, incremented then re-boxed to the original reference type).
Somewhat related to this is the ability to apply += and + to java.lang.String instances. Simply put, this is a special case. Although fully aware of the risk of downvotes I regard this as one of the worst kludges in Java, particularly += which will create a new instance of a string (as strings themselves are immutable), and many Java programmers will be unaware of the effect this has on memory.
It is because of Java's autoboxing feature which is added in Java 1.5
The compiler will convert the statment as follow
Integer integer = 10;
integer.iniValue++;
You can try to add the compiler flag "javac -source 1.4" and it will return an error
From the Link provided in a comment by Konstantin V. Salikhov,
Integer has a defined method to return an int, which then has the ++ operator defined.
MyClass has no ++ operator, hence myClass++; is invalid
The method in question goes like:
Integer myInteger = 10;
myInteger.intValue++;
Autoboxing is the automatic conversion that the Java compiler makes between the primitive types and their corresponding object wrapper classes.
Operator overloading in Java has a description (as to it being not allowed) at Operator overloading in Java
Related
This question already has answers here:
How does auto boxing/unboxing work in Java?
(4 answers)
Closed 7 months ago.
This question is in continuation to a question How can a string be initialized using " "?
I would like to raise your attentation that even Integer, Double, Character, Float, Boolean wrapper class can also be declared in the same way String is declared like:
String s = "Test string"
Integer i = 10; //valid
Double d = 10.00; //valid
Boolean b = true; //valid
Does these class are also given special treatment like the String class.
As I pointed out In my previous answer(How can a string be initialized using " "?)
Yes, to retain primitive types in an OOP, designers made bridge between primitives and Object's with Wrappers and they have a special treatment.
The reason is clearly explained in docs.
There are, however, reasons to use objects in place of primitives, and the Java platform provides wrapper classes for each of the primitive data types. These classes "wrap" the primitive in an object. Often, the wrapping is done by the compiler—if you use a primitive where an object is expected, the compiler boxes the primitive in its wrapper class for you. Similarly, if you use a number object when a primitive is expected, the compiler unboxes the object for you. For more information, see Autoboxing and Unboxing
We use primitives extensively in our programs, So it might be a design decision to allowing syntax like
Integer i = 10; //primitive style
Then memory allocates at compile time itself for i since it is a primitive type, when they found with Wrapper type declarations with an Assignment operator =
Syntax wise ,that is more handy and happy(at least for me :)).
Than writing,
Integer i = new Integer(10); //Object creation style
All these following statements:
Integer i = 10; //valid
Double d = 10.00; //valid
Boolean b = true; //valid
are valid because of autoboxing
Autoboxing is the automatic conversion that the Java compiler makes
between the primitive types and their corresponding object wrapper
classes
Yes primitive Wrapper classes also behave like String class.
You can illustrate like below
Integer i1 = new Integer(10); //valid
Integer i2 =10;
System.out.println(i1==i2); // this one is false
i1=10;
System.out.println(i1==i2); //// this one is true
All wrapper classes of primitive types behave this way. It is called autoboxing and was introduced in java 1.5:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/data/autoboxing.html
String str = "Test String";
having a special treatment is irrespective to and the Integer i = 10;
what is the special treatment String s = "Test String";?
these are called String literals gets the memory in String constant pool of jvm.
the one special significance is in terms of Garbage Collection is, the pooled constants are
never be influenced by garbage collection.
Making 'str' as null does not make "Test String" is eligible for garbage collection.
WHY?:: JVM will try to reuse this "Test String" in future. The garbage collection algorithm excludes the objects which are in pooled memory. so normal GC rules won't apply here. check this out: why String literals are not garbage collected
Now how this treatment is quite different to wrapper's auto boxing. automatic boxing is introduced from JDK1.5. auto boxing & auto unboxing
When Integer i = 10; the compiler replaces this statement with Integer i = Integer.valueOf(10);
only the internal cache wrapper objects of JVM are acts like String literals remaining are not. now what are internal cache wrapper objects?
Integer i = 100;
Integer j = 100;
references i & j are given with a single pre existed object's address.
that is why if( i==j) //true
Integer k = 130;
if( i==k) // false
because k's value is beyond the cache range which is -128 to 127 for Integer.
check this:Integer wrapper behaviour when value range is -128 to 127
In the above if we nullify the reference k then its object undergoes for the GC which is not same treatment like String literals.
If we nullify the i or j then corresponding cached object never be
influenced by GC which is same treatment like String literals.
In Java, I can do the following to succinctly guard against a NullPointerException:
if ("myString".equals(someOtherString))
But I cannot do the same with Integers, e.g.
if (5.equals(someOtherInteger))
I get a compile-time error. Any ideas on why this design decision was made? Or any resources that might explain it? Thanks in advance.
EDIT: someOtherInteger is an Integer, not an int.
String has always been an object in Java. There is no autoboxing for strings, and there can't be in principle. Autoboxing from the primitive int to the Integer object has been introduced fairly recently.
It is valid to ask why trying to access member variables of primitives doesn't invoke autoboxing (95.toString(radix) would actually be pretty convenient), but I imagine that the reason is that it wasn't considered a likely use-case, since since almost every wrappedPrimitive.method() has an equivalent WrapperClass.method( primitive ) version.
equals() is usually unnecessary for primitive types since == is already there. However, you do make a good case for it as a null-guard... 5 == integerInstance will try to unbox the instance, and throw a NullPointerException if the instance is null, unfortunately. (I didn't fully appreciate your point at first.)
That said, it would be really cool if we could hear from someone working on Java either currently or at the introduction of autoboxing about whether they considered this sort of functionality.
The JLS specifies that boxing conversions can only occur during assignment conversions, method invocation conversions, or casting conversions. Since you are neither assigning 5 to a variable, passing it as an argument to a method, nor explicitly casting it to Integer, it will not be autoboxed for you.
Assignment conversion (§5.2, §15.26) converts the type of an
expression to the type of a specified variable.
Assignment conversion may cause an OutOfMemoryError (as a result of
boxing conversion (§5.1.7)), a NullPointerException (as a result of
unboxing conversion (§5.1.8)), or a ClassCastException (as a result of
an unchecked conversion (§5.1.9)) to be thrown at run-time.
Method invocation conversion (§5.3, §15.9, §15.12) is applied to each
argument in a method or constructor invocation and, except in one
case, performs the same conversions that assignment conversion does.
Method invocation conversion may cause an OutOfMemoryError (as a
result of boxing conversion (§5.1.7)), a NullPointerException (as a
result of unboxing conversion (§5.1.8)), or a ClassCastException (as a
result of an unchecked conversion (§5.1.9)) to be thrown at run-time.
Casting contexts allow the use of one of:
...
a boxing conversion (§5.1.7) optionally followed by a widening
reference conversion (§5.1.5)
you can use
if (someOtherInteger!=null && someOtherInteger == 5)
I suspect that autoboxing is not implemented for the literal 5, whereas it is for a string myString, as a safety measure. It's safe to autobox a syntactic structure that is prepended and appended with double quotation marks "", because it's unlikely that the quotation marks are unintended, so the user's intention is clear and type-safety is not compromised.
However, the literal 5 could be a typo on the user's part - or it could be intended to be a string, rather than an integer. Therefore, to maintain the benefit that variables must be declared before use in object-oriented programming in order to prevent typos (among many other advantages) (even if it's implicit, as in the case of autoboxing), 5 is not autoboxed.
Here is a bit of reading on the different comparisons:
http://www.leepoint.net/notes-java/data/expressions/22compareobjects.html
Not sure if it was a built in design to reject int
If you do
Integer s=5;
Integer d=5;
if(d.equals(s)){
System.out.println("Fun");
}
It works just fine.
int is a primitive type it doesn't support any methods itself. To compare 2 ints you simply use the == convention as in:
if(a == b)
There is an Integer class that is a wrapper for an int that supports some other method calls
Edit:
Based on your edit you want to compare to Integer but the problem is the literal 5 isn't an Integer you have to create a new integer for it.
Integer myInt = 5;
if(myInt.equals(someOtherInteger)) ...
This design is inherent in the fact that primitives don't have any methods. As to whether primitives should support methods (or simply not exist) is integral to the debate as to whether Java is a Pure Object Oriented Language or not (many say no due to the fact that primitives exist).
I am confused as to why Integer and int can be used interchangeably in Java even though one is a primitive type and the other is an object?
For example:
Integer b = 42;
int a = b;
Or
int d = 12;
Integer c = d;
The first few sentences of the posted article describe it pretty well:
You can’t put an int (or other primitive value) into a collection. Collections can only hold object references, so you have to box primitive values into the appropriate wrapper class (which is Integer in the case of int). When you take the object out of the collection, you get the Integer that you put in; if you need an int, you must unbox the Integer using the intValue method. All of this boxing and unboxing is a pain, and clutters up your code. The autoboxing and unboxing feature automates the process, eliminating the pain and the clutter.
That is basically it in a nutshell. It allows you take advantage of the Collections Framework for primatives without having to do the work yourself.
The primary disadvantage is that it confuses new programmers, and can lead to messy/confusing code if it's not understood and used correctly.
Java supports autoboxing and automatically wraps primitive values into objects and unwraps objects to primitive values for certain types, like char - Character, int - Integer, double - Double, etc.
Note from Oracle Documentation:
So when should you use autoboxing and unboxing? Use them only when there is an “impedance mismatch” between reference types and primitives, for example, when you have to put numerical values into a collection. It is not appropriate to use autoboxing and unboxing for scientific computing, or other performance-sensitive numerical code. An Integer is not a substitute for an int; autoboxing and unboxing blur the distinction between primitive types and reference types, but they do not eliminate it.
Because of autoboxing and autounboxing http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/autoboxing.html
Using an int and an Integer "interchangeably" is called autoboxing. This feature was introduced in Java 5. Before that, your example code wouldn't have compiled. Instead, you would have to write something like this:
Integer b = Integer.valueOf(42); // or new Integer(42);
int a = b.intValue();
or
int d = 12;
Integer c = Integer.valueOf(d); // or new Integer(d);
That's fairly verbose, which is why autoboxing was introduced. It's a bit of compiler magic to make life easier for the coder.
Technically, int and Integer themselves are not interchangeable and one cannot be used where the other is required. However, autoboxing allows implicit conversion between the two.
As a side note, there is one case where autoboxing (specifically unboxing) fails. If your code tries to autounbox a null value, you will get a NullPointerException at runtime, e.g.:
Integer b = null;
int a = b; // NullPointerException here!
Just something to be aware of...
It's called AutoBoxing. That will explain exactly what it is.
In addition to other answers, because Integer is a wrapper class, that lets you box and unbox an int value. Other info here.
The java language specification states that the java virtual machine must perform automatic boxing/unboxing for integers and a few other types.
I know how to use casting in Java but have a more specific question; could you please explain to me how the casting works (in memory)?
How is the variable type changed upon upcasting and downcasting?
How does the JVM know that it's safe to send this method to this object?
Thank you in advance.
Could you please explain me how the casting works ( in memory )?
It works at byte code level not really in memory
How the variable type is changed on upcasting and downcasting?
If it is a primitive with an special bytecode instruction, for instance from long to integer as in:
long l = ...
int i = ( int ) l;
The bytecode is: l2i if is a reference with the instruction checkcast
How the JVM knows that from this time it's safe to send this method to this object?
It doesn't, it tries to do it at runtime and if it fails throws an exception.
It is legal to write:
String s = ( String ) new Date();
Possible duplicate of the accepted answer to this question:
How does the Java cast operator work?
There's also quite an extensive explanation here, that covers all data types, etc.:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/conversions.html#5.5
All casting of primitives is done in registers (like most operations) For primitives, in many cases, when down casting the lower bits are taken and for up casting, the sign is extended. There are edge cases but you usually don't need to know what these are.
upcasting/downcasting a reference works the same in that it checks the actual object is an instance of the type you cast to. You can cast which is neither upcast nor down cast.
e.g.
Number n = 1;
Comparable c = (Comparable) n; // Number and Comparable are unrelated.
Serializable s = (Serializable) c; // Serializable and Comparable are unrelated.
If you are interested in the inner workings of jvn concerning how casts work you may also check the jvm spec http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Concepts.doc.html#25611
in wrapper classes we have two types of methods parseXxx() and valueOf() in every wrapper class for interconversion between primitive and wrapper objects.recently java 1.5 introduced auto boxing and boxing.so why they didn't deprecate those methods.
Because Autoboxing and Auto Unboxing are just compile time features. Try writing something like this in your source file and then have a look at the decompiled code:
Integer i = 10;
Decompiled code:
Integer i = Integer.valueOf(10);
Similarly,
int i = new Integer(100);
will give you the below when decompiled:
int i = (new Integer(100)).intValue();
Thus, the JVM still heavily relies on these methods at runtime, though it's masked when you write the code.
Well, parseXxx() is entirely unlike boxing; it turns a String into a primitive object. valueOf(), on the other hand, is actually used in boxing -- it either constructs a new wrapper object, or it fetches an existing one from a cache, depending on the value. The Java compiler generates a call to valueOf(), and that's precisely what boxing means.
1. There can be value sometimes in explicitly stating some conversion (for the clarity of e.g. some unobvious/obscure case).
2. Wouldn't that deprecation result in old programs becoming excessively littered with deprecation warnings?
As the command line arguments are treated as String Array, but given the condition when you are expecting command line argument other than String datatype(that may be primitives) i.e. boolean, int, byte, short, long, float, double, char than you need to parse the argument into the one what your program expects and here you use parseXXX() methods, to be precise parseXXX method take String argument and return the appropriate data type which you are trying to parse into.