I see that the explicit cast syntax for boolean (boolean)
is syntactically legal, but I can't think of a use for it. The corresponding Boolean object -- or rather casting back and forth between boolean and Boolean -- is handled by autoboxing. So it seems like a useless language artifact of the compiler. Is there a functional scenario I am missing?
Java avoids this and other problems by making boolean and the integer datatypes distinct types that cannot be converted from one to the other.
You can cast DECIMAL values to BOOLEAN , with the same treatment of zero and non-zero values as the other numeric types. You cannot cast a BOOLEAN to a DECIMAL . You cannot cast a STRING value to BOOLEAN , although you can cast a BOOLEAN value to STRING , returning '1' for true values and '0' for false values.
It is recommended that you use the Boolean() function to convert a value of a different type to a Boolean type, but you should never use the Boolean as a wrapper object of a primitive boolean value.
For Example, in java, the numeric data types are compatible with each other but no automatic conversion is supported from numeric type to char or boolean. Also, char and boolean are not compatible with each other.
It can make a difference when an overloaded method is called. Since the method to call is determined by the static type(s) of the parameter(s) (See JLS, §15.12.2), casting a Boolean
to a boolean
or vice-versa can change which method is called:
class Ideone {
public static void main (String[] args) {
final Boolean b = true;
foo((boolean) b); // prints out "primitive"
foo(b); // prints out "wrapper"
}
public static void foo(boolean b) {
System.out.println("primitive");
}
public static void foo(Boolean b) {
System.out.println("wrapper");
}
}
Ideone Demo
Notice that when casting from Boolean
to boolean
, a NullPointerException
may occur when the Boolean
has a value of null
.
Whether this behaviour is (extensively) used or should be used is another debate, however.
rzwitserloot showed another case with boolean
and Object
in their answer. While rzwisterloot's case seems similar, the underlying mechanism is different since the downcast from Object
to boolean
is defined separately in the JLS. Furthermore, it is prone to a ClassCastException
(if the Object
is not a Boolean
) aswell as a NullPointerException
(if the Object
is null
).
Not entirely.
Ordinarily, applying the cast operator with a primitive type serves only one purpose, which is to convert one primitive type to another. boolean
is the only primitive type with the property that nothing can be converted to a boolean, and a boolean cannot be converted to anything else.
But, there is a second purpose to these, although it's not exactly spelled out in the JLS and is a dubious code style practice: It effectively causes auto-unboxing to trigger. And it even combines the job of triggering auto-unbox and an ordinary type cast:
Object o = true;
boolean b = (boolean) o;
o = "Hello";
b = (boolean) o;
compiles just fine. It'll cause a ClassCastException on the 4th line, as expected. Without the boolean cast, you'd have to do something like:
boolean b = ((Boolean) o).booleanValue();
which is definitely more wordy. Exactly how often you end up wanting to cast some expression of type Object
to boolean
- probably that's a very rare occurrence, but it is a real one, and disallowing (boolean)
would have made the JLS longer, not shorter (and the javac codebase wouldn't be any shorter either).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With