Until today, I thought that for example:
i += j;
Was just a shortcut for:
i = i + j;
But if we try this:
int i = 5;
long j = 8;
Then i = i + j; will not compile but i += j; will compile fine.
Does it mean that in fact i += j; is a shortcut for something like this
i = (type of i) (i + j)?
As always with these questions, the JLS holds the answer. In this case §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators. An extract:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
An example cited from §15.26.2
[...] the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
In other words, your assumption is correct.
A good example of this casting is using *= or /=
byte b = 10;
b *= 5.7;
System.out.println(b); // prints 57
or
byte b = 100;
b /= 2.5;
System.out.println(b); // prints 40
or
char ch = '0';
ch *= 1.1;
System.out.println(ch); // prints '4'
or
char ch = 'A';
ch *= 1.5;
System.out.println(ch); // prints 'a'
Very good question. The Java Language specification confirms your suggestion.
For example, the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
Yes,
basically when we write
i += l;
the compiler converts this to
i = (int)(i + l);
I just checked the .class file code.
Really a good thing to know
you need to cast from long to int explicitly in case of i = i + l then it will compile and give correct output. like
i = i + (int)l;
or
i = (int)((long)i + l); // this is what happens in case of += , dont need (long) casting since upper casting is done implicitly.
but in case of += it just works fine because the operator implicitly does the type casting from type of right variable to type of left variable so need not cast explicitly.
The problem here involves type casting.
When you add int and long,
The int object is casted to long & both are added and you get long object.
but long object cannot be implicitly casted to int. So, you have to do that explicitly.
But += is coded in such a way that it does type casting. i=(int)(i+m)
In Java type conversions are performed automatically when the type of the expression on the right hand side of an assignment operation can be safely promoted to the type of the variable on the left hand side of the assignment. Thus we can safely assign:
byte -> short -> int -> long -> float -> double.
The same will not work the other way round. For example we cannot automatically convert a long to an int because the first requires more storage than the second and consequently information may be lost. To force such a conversion we must carry out an explicit conversion.
Type - Conversion
Sometimes, such a question can be asked at an interview.
For example, when you write:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a = a + b;
there is no automatic typecasting. In C++ there will not be any error compiling the above code, but in Java you will get something like Incompatible type exception.
So to avoid it, you must write your code like this:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a += b;// No compilation error or any exception due to the auto typecasting
The main difference is that with a = a + b, there is no typecasting going on, and so the compiler gets angry at you for not typecasting. But with a += b, what it's really doing is typecasting b to a type compatible with a. So if you do
int a=5;
long b=10;
a+=b;
System.out.println(a);
What you're really doing is:
int a=5;
long b=10;
a=a+(int)b;
System.out.println(a);
Subtle point here...
There is an implicit typecast for i+j when j is a double and i is an int.
Java ALWAYS converts an integer into a double when there is an operation between them.
To clarify i+=j where i is an integer and j is a double can be described as
i = <int>(<double>i + j)
See: this description of implicit casting
You might want to typecast j to (int) in this case for clarity.
Java Language Specification defines E1 op= E2 to be equivalent to E1 = (T) ((E1) op (E2)) where T is a type of E1 and E1 is evaluated once.
That's a technical answer, but you may be wondering why that's a case. Well, let's consider the following program.
public class PlusEquals {
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte a = 1;
byte b = 2;
a = a + b;
System.out.println(a);
}
}
What does this program print?
Did you guess 3? Too bad, this program won't compile. Why? Well, it so happens that addition of bytes in Java is defined to return an int. This, I believe was because the Java Virtual Machine doesn't define byte operations to save on bytecodes (there is a limited number of those, after all), using integer operations instead is an implementation detail exposed in a language.
But if a = a + b doesn't work, that would mean a += b would never work for bytes if it E1 += E2 was defined to be E1 = E1 + E2. As the previous example shows, that would be indeed the case. As a hack to make += operator work for bytes and shorts, there is an implicit cast involved. It's not that great of a hack, but back during the Java 1.0 work, the focus was on getting the language released to begin with. Now, because of backwards compatibility, this hack introduced in Java 1.0 couldn't be removed.
Related
Until today, I thought that for example:
i += j;
Was just a shortcut for:
i = i + j;
But if we try this:
int i = 5;
long j = 8;
Then i = i + j; will not compile but i += j; will compile fine.
Does it mean that in fact i += j; is a shortcut for something like this
i = (type of i) (i + j)?
As always with these questions, the JLS holds the answer. In this case §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators. An extract:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
An example cited from §15.26.2
[...] the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
In other words, your assumption is correct.
A good example of this casting is using *= or /=
byte b = 10;
b *= 5.7;
System.out.println(b); // prints 57
or
byte b = 100;
b /= 2.5;
System.out.println(b); // prints 40
or
char ch = '0';
ch *= 1.1;
System.out.println(ch); // prints '4'
or
char ch = 'A';
ch *= 1.5;
System.out.println(ch); // prints 'a'
Very good question. The Java Language specification confirms your suggestion.
For example, the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
Yes,
basically when we write
i += l;
the compiler converts this to
i = (int)(i + l);
I just checked the .class file code.
Really a good thing to know
you need to cast from long to int explicitly in case of i = i + l then it will compile and give correct output. like
i = i + (int)l;
or
i = (int)((long)i + l); // this is what happens in case of += , dont need (long) casting since upper casting is done implicitly.
but in case of += it just works fine because the operator implicitly does the type casting from type of right variable to type of left variable so need not cast explicitly.
The problem here involves type casting.
When you add int and long,
The int object is casted to long & both are added and you get long object.
but long object cannot be implicitly casted to int. So, you have to do that explicitly.
But += is coded in such a way that it does type casting. i=(int)(i+m)
In Java type conversions are performed automatically when the type of the expression on the right hand side of an assignment operation can be safely promoted to the type of the variable on the left hand side of the assignment. Thus we can safely assign:
byte -> short -> int -> long -> float -> double.
The same will not work the other way round. For example we cannot automatically convert a long to an int because the first requires more storage than the second and consequently information may be lost. To force such a conversion we must carry out an explicit conversion.
Type - Conversion
Sometimes, such a question can be asked at an interview.
For example, when you write:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a = a + b;
there is no automatic typecasting. In C++ there will not be any error compiling the above code, but in Java you will get something like Incompatible type exception.
So to avoid it, you must write your code like this:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a += b;// No compilation error or any exception due to the auto typecasting
The main difference is that with a = a + b, there is no typecasting going on, and so the compiler gets angry at you for not typecasting. But with a += b, what it's really doing is typecasting b to a type compatible with a. So if you do
int a=5;
long b=10;
a+=b;
System.out.println(a);
What you're really doing is:
int a=5;
long b=10;
a=a+(int)b;
System.out.println(a);
Subtle point here...
There is an implicit typecast for i+j when j is a double and i is an int.
Java ALWAYS converts an integer into a double when there is an operation between them.
To clarify i+=j where i is an integer and j is a double can be described as
i = <int>(<double>i + j)
See: this description of implicit casting
You might want to typecast j to (int) in this case for clarity.
Java Language Specification defines E1 op= E2 to be equivalent to E1 = (T) ((E1) op (E2)) where T is a type of E1 and E1 is evaluated once.
That's a technical answer, but you may be wondering why that's a case. Well, let's consider the following program.
public class PlusEquals {
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte a = 1;
byte b = 2;
a = a + b;
System.out.println(a);
}
}
What does this program print?
Did you guess 3? Too bad, this program won't compile. Why? Well, it so happens that addition of bytes in Java is defined to return an int. This, I believe was because the Java Virtual Machine doesn't define byte operations to save on bytecodes (there is a limited number of those, after all), using integer operations instead is an implementation detail exposed in a language.
But if a = a + b doesn't work, that would mean a += b would never work for bytes if it E1 += E2 was defined to be E1 = E1 + E2. As the previous example shows, that would be indeed the case. As a hack to make += operator work for bytes and shorts, there is an implicit cast involved. It's not that great of a hack, but back during the Java 1.0 work, the focus was on getting the language released to begin with. Now, because of backwards compatibility, this hack introduced in Java 1.0 couldn't be removed.
Until today, I thought that for example:
i += j;
Was just a shortcut for:
i = i + j;
But if we try this:
int i = 5;
long j = 8;
Then i = i + j; will not compile but i += j; will compile fine.
Does it mean that in fact i += j; is a shortcut for something like this
i = (type of i) (i + j)?
As always with these questions, the JLS holds the answer. In this case §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators. An extract:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
An example cited from §15.26.2
[...] the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
In other words, your assumption is correct.
A good example of this casting is using *= or /=
byte b = 10;
b *= 5.7;
System.out.println(b); // prints 57
or
byte b = 100;
b /= 2.5;
System.out.println(b); // prints 40
or
char ch = '0';
ch *= 1.1;
System.out.println(ch); // prints '4'
or
char ch = 'A';
ch *= 1.5;
System.out.println(ch); // prints 'a'
Very good question. The Java Language specification confirms your suggestion.
For example, the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
Yes,
basically when we write
i += l;
the compiler converts this to
i = (int)(i + l);
I just checked the .class file code.
Really a good thing to know
you need to cast from long to int explicitly in case of i = i + l then it will compile and give correct output. like
i = i + (int)l;
or
i = (int)((long)i + l); // this is what happens in case of += , dont need (long) casting since upper casting is done implicitly.
but in case of += it just works fine because the operator implicitly does the type casting from type of right variable to type of left variable so need not cast explicitly.
The problem here involves type casting.
When you add int and long,
The int object is casted to long & both are added and you get long object.
but long object cannot be implicitly casted to int. So, you have to do that explicitly.
But += is coded in such a way that it does type casting. i=(int)(i+m)
In Java type conversions are performed automatically when the type of the expression on the right hand side of an assignment operation can be safely promoted to the type of the variable on the left hand side of the assignment. Thus we can safely assign:
byte -> short -> int -> long -> float -> double.
The same will not work the other way round. For example we cannot automatically convert a long to an int because the first requires more storage than the second and consequently information may be lost. To force such a conversion we must carry out an explicit conversion.
Type - Conversion
Sometimes, such a question can be asked at an interview.
For example, when you write:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a = a + b;
there is no automatic typecasting. In C++ there will not be any error compiling the above code, but in Java you will get something like Incompatible type exception.
So to avoid it, you must write your code like this:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a += b;// No compilation error or any exception due to the auto typecasting
The main difference is that with a = a + b, there is no typecasting going on, and so the compiler gets angry at you for not typecasting. But with a += b, what it's really doing is typecasting b to a type compatible with a. So if you do
int a=5;
long b=10;
a+=b;
System.out.println(a);
What you're really doing is:
int a=5;
long b=10;
a=a+(int)b;
System.out.println(a);
Subtle point here...
There is an implicit typecast for i+j when j is a double and i is an int.
Java ALWAYS converts an integer into a double when there is an operation between them.
To clarify i+=j where i is an integer and j is a double can be described as
i = <int>(<double>i + j)
See: this description of implicit casting
You might want to typecast j to (int) in this case for clarity.
Java Language Specification defines E1 op= E2 to be equivalent to E1 = (T) ((E1) op (E2)) where T is a type of E1 and E1 is evaluated once.
That's a technical answer, but you may be wondering why that's a case. Well, let's consider the following program.
public class PlusEquals {
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte a = 1;
byte b = 2;
a = a + b;
System.out.println(a);
}
}
What does this program print?
Did you guess 3? Too bad, this program won't compile. Why? Well, it so happens that addition of bytes in Java is defined to return an int. This, I believe was because the Java Virtual Machine doesn't define byte operations to save on bytecodes (there is a limited number of those, after all), using integer operations instead is an implementation detail exposed in a language.
But if a = a + b doesn't work, that would mean a += b would never work for bytes if it E1 += E2 was defined to be E1 = E1 + E2. As the previous example shows, that would be indeed the case. As a hack to make += operator work for bytes and shorts, there is an implicit cast involved. It's not that great of a hack, but back during the Java 1.0 work, the focus was on getting the language released to begin with. Now, because of backwards compatibility, this hack introduced in Java 1.0 couldn't be removed.
Until today, I thought that for example:
i += j;
Was just a shortcut for:
i = i + j;
But if we try this:
int i = 5;
long j = 8;
Then i = i + j; will not compile but i += j; will compile fine.
Does it mean that in fact i += j; is a shortcut for something like this
i = (type of i) (i + j)?
As always with these questions, the JLS holds the answer. In this case §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators. An extract:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
An example cited from §15.26.2
[...] the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
In other words, your assumption is correct.
A good example of this casting is using *= or /=
byte b = 10;
b *= 5.7;
System.out.println(b); // prints 57
or
byte b = 100;
b /= 2.5;
System.out.println(b); // prints 40
or
char ch = '0';
ch *= 1.1;
System.out.println(ch); // prints '4'
or
char ch = 'A';
ch *= 1.5;
System.out.println(ch); // prints 'a'
Very good question. The Java Language specification confirms your suggestion.
For example, the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);
Yes,
basically when we write
i += l;
the compiler converts this to
i = (int)(i + l);
I just checked the .class file code.
Really a good thing to know
you need to cast from long to int explicitly in case of i = i + l then it will compile and give correct output. like
i = i + (int)l;
or
i = (int)((long)i + l); // this is what happens in case of += , dont need (long) casting since upper casting is done implicitly.
but in case of += it just works fine because the operator implicitly does the type casting from type of right variable to type of left variable so need not cast explicitly.
The problem here involves type casting.
When you add int and long,
The int object is casted to long & both are added and you get long object.
but long object cannot be implicitly casted to int. So, you have to do that explicitly.
But += is coded in such a way that it does type casting. i=(int)(i+m)
In Java type conversions are performed automatically when the type of the expression on the right hand side of an assignment operation can be safely promoted to the type of the variable on the left hand side of the assignment. Thus we can safely assign:
byte -> short -> int -> long -> float -> double.
The same will not work the other way round. For example we cannot automatically convert a long to an int because the first requires more storage than the second and consequently information may be lost. To force such a conversion we must carry out an explicit conversion.
Type - Conversion
Sometimes, such a question can be asked at an interview.
For example, when you write:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a = a + b;
there is no automatic typecasting. In C++ there will not be any error compiling the above code, but in Java you will get something like Incompatible type exception.
So to avoid it, you must write your code like this:
int a = 2;
long b = 3;
a += b;// No compilation error or any exception due to the auto typecasting
The main difference is that with a = a + b, there is no typecasting going on, and so the compiler gets angry at you for not typecasting. But with a += b, what it's really doing is typecasting b to a type compatible with a. So if you do
int a=5;
long b=10;
a+=b;
System.out.println(a);
What you're really doing is:
int a=5;
long b=10;
a=a+(int)b;
System.out.println(a);
Subtle point here...
There is an implicit typecast for i+j when j is a double and i is an int.
Java ALWAYS converts an integer into a double when there is an operation between them.
To clarify i+=j where i is an integer and j is a double can be described as
i = <int>(<double>i + j)
See: this description of implicit casting
You might want to typecast j to (int) in this case for clarity.
Java Language Specification defines E1 op= E2 to be equivalent to E1 = (T) ((E1) op (E2)) where T is a type of E1 and E1 is evaluated once.
That's a technical answer, but you may be wondering why that's a case. Well, let's consider the following program.
public class PlusEquals {
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte a = 1;
byte b = 2;
a = a + b;
System.out.println(a);
}
}
What does this program print?
Did you guess 3? Too bad, this program won't compile. Why? Well, it so happens that addition of bytes in Java is defined to return an int. This, I believe was because the Java Virtual Machine doesn't define byte operations to save on bytecodes (there is a limited number of those, after all), using integer operations instead is an implementation detail exposed in a language.
But if a = a + b doesn't work, that would mean a += b would never work for bytes if it E1 += E2 was defined to be E1 = E1 + E2. As the previous example shows, that would be indeed the case. As a hack to make += operator work for bytes and shorts, there is an implicit cast involved. It's not that great of a hack, but back during the Java 1.0 work, the focus was on getting the language released to begin with. Now, because of backwards compatibility, this hack introduced in Java 1.0 couldn't be removed.
I spotted Java's +=, -=, *=, /= compound assignment operators (good question :)), but it had a part that I don't quite understand. Borrowing from that question:
int i = 5;
long l = 8;
Then i = i + l; will not compile but i += l; will compile fine.
The accepted answer to the linked question states that:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
which gives that i += l; is the same as i = (int)((i) + (l)); with the exception that i is only evaluated once.
A long may be (IIRC even is guaranteed to be) longer than an int, and thus can hold a much greater range of values.
Given that this situation can very easily cause data loss due to necessary narrowing conversion at some point during execution of the statement (either r-value expression evaluation, or assignment), why is i += l; not a compile-time error or at least warning?
Basically, because i += l is compiled as if it were written i = (int) (i + l). There are similar "surprises" when adding int values to byte and char variables -- the assignment operator works while the plain addition operator does not.
Given that this situation can very easily cause data loss due to necessary narrowing conversion at some point during execution of the statement (either r-value expression evaluation, or assignment), why is i += l; not a compile-time error or at least warning?
It probably should be, as you said, either a compile-time error or at least warning. Most books and tutorials that I'm aware of introduce x += y; as shorthand for x = x + y;. I honestly don't know of any that make the distinction called out in section 15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators of the JLS except one.
In chapter 2 (puzzle 9) of Java Puzzlers: Traps, Pitfalls, and Corner Cases the authors (Joshua Bloch & Neal Gafter) ask you to provide declarations for x and i such that this is a legal statement:
x += i;
and this is not:
x = x + i;
There are lots of solutions, including the first two lines of code that you posted in your question. The authors warn against using compound assignment operators on variables of types byte, short, and char, and recommend that when using these operators on variables of type int you should make sure that the RHS expression is not a long, float, or double.
They conclude with the following observation (emphasis mine):
In summary, compound assignment operators silently generate a cast. If the type of the result of the computation is wider than that of the variable, the generated cast is a dangerous narrowing cast. Such casts can silently discard precision or magnitude. For language designers, it is probably a mistake for compound assignment operators to generate invisible casts; compound assignments where the variable has a narrower type than the result of the computation should probably be illegal.
the reason for this is so you can do:
byte b = 1;
b += 1;
if += was expanded to b = b + 1 then the expression would not type check because the expression "b + 1" is of type int. all integral expressions in java are at least the int type even if you add two bytes together.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte b = 1;
byte c = 2;
byte d = b + c;
}
}
Test.java:5: possible loss of precision
found : int
required: byte
byte d = b + c;
^
1 error
If I have a byte variable: byte b = 0;
why does the following work:
b++;
b += 1; // compiles
... but this does not ?
b = b + 1; // compile error
Does compiler understand first as byte and second as int ?
[EDIT]
I know casting but I want to draw your attention to the b++, b += 1 and b = b + 1
I think they are equal so why compiler differs them ? what is the difference between
b += 1 and b = b + 1 ?
Because b += 1 is an equivalent to b = (byte)(b + 1), whereas type of b + 1 is promoted to int (JLS §5.6.2 Binary Numeric Promotion) and therefore its result cannot be assigned to byte without explicit conversion.
From JLS, §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators:
A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.
Possible loss of precision is the problem. Cast it and it is OK.
b = (byte) (b + 1);
Yes, the result of the +-operation is int, so a cast is needed in order to assign it to a byte variable.
In java the default for integers is int, and for floating point numbers it is double. So b is by default converted to integer to perform the operation. So the resultant answer needs to be typecasted before being stored to prevent any possible loss of precision. But b+=1 does it automatically.
operands of type byte and short are automatically promoted to int before being handed to the operators
so when you do byte b= b + 1;
it considers it "int" as an operation is performed on byte value. so to avoid this we use b+=1; here it is automatically typecasted to byte.
You need to cast to byte:
b = (byte) (b + 1);
Doing b + 1 widens the result to integer, and assigning back to byte b would cause loss of precision. Explained: Conversions and Promotions. But I like axtavt's answer better.
I don't buy the argument about loss of precision, since the compiler won't protect you in a similar fashion when dealing with ints and longs.
I think the real answer lies with the JLS simply having better support for ints than bytes, as stated in this answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13211737/567000