SCJP - exam question

tags:

java
scjp

views:

answers:

SCJP - exam question

It's actually from SCJP 6 StudyGuide Exam310-065(MGH,2008) alt text

The call to super() in Kinder class constructor seems to be redundant because of:

quote from the book: i.e. that there is no need to type super() explicitly, as this can be done by compiler
the compiler accepts very well version without call to super()

The question is, if authors made some mistake in this question or am I missing something (more likely)

+1 A:

Sorry, I may be missing something (most likely), but it sounds like it's stated in the text:

a. The line cannot be left blank, as the parentheses are already in place.

That is, a constructor can be empty.. except that empty parentheses would be a syntax error (so it wouldn't compile).

b. Further, since the superclass constructor called is the no-argument version, this constructor must be created.

I think you may just have to re-read the text one more time and it should all click. Or I am really off on the whole thing.. in that case I apologize, it's kind of late over here. ;-)

pithyless 2010-03-01 20:09:29

a) constructor with empty body is not a syntax error. b) I have no objection that no-arg constructor should be created, my point was that super()-call is redundant

kilonet 2010-03-01 20:26:20

@kilonet: you are correct in both points, but they are not relevant to the question. Since the template already has the parenthesis in there without an argument, you need to put *something* there to make it valid Java code. That's the only reason for the no-args `super()` call there. It's a kind of trick question, in my opinion.

Joachim Sauer 2010-03-01 20:31:57

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

SCJP - exam question

related questions