B is wrong. A try statement executes a block. If a value is thrown and the try statement has one or more catch clauses that can catch it, then control will be transferred to the first such catch clause. If that catch block completes normally, then the try statement completes normally.
C is wrong. Exceptions of type Error and RuntimeException do not have to be caught, only checked exceptions (java.lang.Exception) have to be caught. However, speaking of Exceptions, Exceptions do not have to be handled in the same method as the throw statement. They can be passed to another method.
If you put a finally block after a try and its associated catch blocks, then once execution enters the try block, the code in that finally block will definitely be executed except in the following circumstances:
Assertion checking may be disabled for increased performance. Typically, assertion checking is enabled during program development and testing and disabled for deployment.
Option B is wrong. Because you assert that something is "true". True is Boolean. So, an expression must evaluate to Boolean, not int or byte or anything else. Use the same rules for an assertion expression that you would use for a while condition.
Option C is wrong. Usually, enforcing a precondition on a public method is done by condition-checking code that you write yourself, to give you specific exceptions.
Option D is wrong. "You're never supposed to handle an assertion failure"
Not all legal uses of assertions are considered appropriate. As with so much of Java, you can abuse the intended use for assertions, despite the best efforts of Sun's Java engineers to discourage you. For example, you're never supposed to handle an assertion failure. That means don't catch it with a catch clause and attempt to recover. Legally, however, AssertionError is a subclass of Throwable, so it can be caught. But just don't do it! If you're going to try to recover from something, it should be an exception. To discourage you from trying to substitute an assertion for an exception, the AssertionError doesn't provide access to the object that generated it. All you get is the String message.
String s = "ABC"; s.toLowerCase(); s += "def"; System.out.println(s);
Line 2 returns a string object but does not change the originag string object s, so after line 2 s is still "ABC".
So what's happening on line 3? Java will treat line 3 like the following:
s = new StringBuffer().append(s).append("def").toString();
This effectively creates a new String object and stores its reference in the variable s, the old String object containing "ABC" is no longer referenced by a live thread and becomes available for garbage collection.
class Super { public Integer getLength() { return new Integer(4); } } public class Sub extends Super { public Long getLength() { return new Long(5); } public static void main(String[] args) { Super sooper = new Super(); Sub sub = new Sub(); System.out.println( sooper.getLength().toString() + "," + sub.getLength().toString() ); } }
Option A is wrong. HashSet makes no guarantees as to the iteration order of the set; in particular, it does not guarantee that the order will remain constant over time.
Option B is wrong. The set can be modified.
Option D is wrong. This is a Set and not a Map.
public class Test { private static int[] x; public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(x[0]); } }
private static int[]x = new int[5];
private static int[x] declares a static i.e. class level array.
the "new" keyword is the word that actually creates said array.
int[5] in association with the new sets the size of the array. so since the above code contains no new or size decalarations when you try and access x[0] you are trying to access a member of an array that has been declared but not intialized hence you get a NullPointerException at runtime.
public class Example { public static void main(String [] args) { double values[] = {-2.3, -1.0, 0.25, 4}; int cnt = 0; for (int x=0; x < values.length; x++) { if (Math.round(values[x] + .5) == Math.ceil(values[x])) { ++cnt; } } System.out.println("same results " + cnt + " time(s)"); } }
public class ThreadDemo { private int count = 1; public synchronized void doSomething() { for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) System.out.println(count++); } public static void main(String[] args) { ThreadDemo demo = new ThreadDemo(); Thread a1 = new A(demo); Thread a2 = new A(demo); a1.start(); a2.start(); } } class A extends Thread { ThreadDemo demo; public A(ThreadDemo td) { demo = td; } public void run() { demo.doSomething(); } }
The updating and output takes place inside synchronized code.
One thread will run to completion printing the numbers 1-10.
The second thread will then run to completion printing the numbers 11-20.
Option A is incorrect - just because another thread activates the modify method in A this does not mean that the thread will automatically resume execution
Option C is incorrect - This is incorrect because as said in Answer B notify only wakes the thread but further to this once it is awake it goes back into the stack and awaits execution therefore it is not a "direct and sole consequence of the notify call"
Option D is incorrect - The notify method wakes one waiting thread up. If there are more than one sleeping threads then the choice as to which thread to wake is made by the machine rather than you therefore you cannot guarantee that the notify'ed thread will be the first waiting thread.
public class Test { public static void main(String args[]) { class Foo { public int i = 3; } Object o = (Object)new Foo(); Foo foo = (Foo)o; System.out.println("i = " + foo.i); } }
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.