All numbers in Java are supposed to be of int type. The following line is legal in Java>1.5
Short s = 1; // Will compile to Short s = Short.valueOf((short)1) - thus you can't exceed short max value i.e.
Short s = 4444; // is invalid for autoboxing
Same mechanics go for Integer
and Byte
instantiation. But Long works completely different. The following code gives compile time error
Long l = 10;
Long uses the same approach for autoboxing of long types, so
Long l = 10L; //is valid and is translated into Long.valueOf(10L)
I can't see why int cannot be assigned to a Long variable. Any thoughts on this matter?
I think the question was not about casting primitives and wrappers in general. The question was about difference between casting int to java.lang.Long and int to java.lang.Short for example.
JLS: "In addition, if the expression is a constant expression (§15.28) of type byte, short, char or int:
So all <=32bit primitives can be casted easily and long (64bit) requires special casting. It seems illogically.
All illogical things as usual has explanation in backward compability or historical evolution in java. E.g. classes Integer and Long exist in java since version 1.0. Classes Short and Byte exist in java since 1.1. That is at the start point integral number can be two types: integer or long. So I think there are different casting rules for these two types of numbers. And then short and byte were added. I suppose short and byte can have 32-bit implementation in concrete JVMs.
Because Long with the first capital letter is a wrapper class and not the primitive type .
Take a look here .
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