Possible Duplicate:
Method Overloading for NULL parameter
In the code below the output is
String
and if I remove the method with the parameter of type String
then the output is
Object
I know how overloading of methods acts when the parameter types don't match exactly but I can not understand how null can be treated as an Object
and/or a String
parameter.
What is the explanation for this?
class C {
static void m1(Object x) {
System.out.print("Object");
}
static void m1(String x) {
System.out.print("String");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
m1(null);
}
}
That means they accept null values. When we pass a null value to the method1 the compiler gets confused which method it has to select, as both are accepting the null. This compile time error wouldn't happen unless we intentionally pass null value.
You can pass NULL as a function parameter only if the specific parameter is a pointer. The only practical way is with a pointer for a parameter. However, you can also use a void type for parameters, and then check for null, if not check and cast into ordinary or required type.
No, you cannot overload a method based on different return type but same argument type and number in java. same name. different parameters (different type or, different number or both).
In Java, two or more methods may have the same name if they differ in parameters (different number of parameters, different types of parameters, or both). These methods are called overloaded methods and this feature is called method overloading.
It always uses the most specific method according to the Java specs, section 15.12.2.5.
The intro is reasonably specific about it:
If more than one member method is both accessible and applicable to a method invocation, it is necessary to choose one to provide the descriptor for the run-time method dispatch. The Java programming language uses the rule that the most specific method is chosen.
The informal intuition is that one method is more specific than another if any invocation handled by the first method could be passed on to the other one without a compile-time type error.
Generally speaking, and at least for code readability, it's always best to try to be as explicit as possible. You could cast your null
into the type that matches the signature you want to call. But that's definitely a questionable practice. It assumes everyone knows this rule and makes the code more difficult to read.
But it's a good academic question, so I +1 your question.
When multiple overloads match a signature, Java picks the most specific method from among them.
The value of null
matches both Object
and String
, but String
is a subclass of Object
, so String
is picked. If you add another overload with a sibling of String
in the class hierarchy, you'd get a compile error.\
// DOES NOT COMPILE
class C {
static void m1(Object x) {
System.out.print("Object");
}
static void m1(String x) {
System.out.print("String");
}
static void m1(Integer x) {
System.out.print("Integer");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
m1(null);
}
}
Here is a link to a post that discusses your code example at some length.
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