Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Oct 2005 18:40 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 42374
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-08
"Ok I was patially wrong, i`ve been playing with this and on DECLARED constants it does work but on say a boolean that is NOT declared as final but is in local scope and is assigned false and does not again change it does not!"
There is a good reason for this though. If it did do as you suggest it should, you would potentially break any classes that relied on the class in question if you ever change that value in the future. Thus, every class tha relied on that class would have to be recompiled. Things like this are part of the reason that C++ suffers from what is sometimes called the "fragile base class" problem. This is a problem that Java does not have.