Method Overloading for null argument
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null)
, then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer
and char
methods or Integer
and Object
methods?
java oop null overloading
add a comment |
I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null)
, then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer
and char
methods or Integer
and Object
methods?
java oop null overloading
2
Just change theInteger
toint
.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
2
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
2
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw thereference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09
add a comment |
I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null)
, then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer
and char
methods or Integer
and Object
methods?
java oop null overloading
I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null)
, then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer
and char
methods or Integer
and Object
methods?
java oop null overloading
java oop null overloading
edited Dec 13 '15 at 17:50
Jon Skeet
1098k69779968477
1098k69779968477
asked Mar 8 '11 at 7:55
PhaniPhani
3,35062941
3,35062941
2
Just change theInteger
toint
.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
2
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
2
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw thereference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09
add a comment |
2
Just change theInteger
toint
.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
2
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
2
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw thereference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.
– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09
2
2
Just change the
Integer
to int
.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
Just change the
Integer
to int
.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
2
2
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
2
2
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw the
reference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw the
reference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object
, char
and Integer
can all take null
as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object
is the super-type of char
, the array version is more specific than the Object
-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char
version will be chosen.
When both the char
and Integer
versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object
but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null
or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object
).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null
, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
add a comment |
Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null
argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null
arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.
1
OnlyInteger
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.
– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods withnull
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that onlyInteger - char
pair is ambiguous.
– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what aboutdoSomething(null)
forpublic static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.
– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
add a comment |
null
is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null)
or doSomething((Integer)null)
instead.
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
add a comment |
Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.
add a comment |
I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.
add a comment |
there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char obj) and doSomething(Integer obj) .
char and Integer both are same superior for null thats why they are in ambiguous .
add a comment |
class Sample{
public static void main (String args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char and Integer
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f5229809%2fmethod-overloading-for-null-argument%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object
, char
and Integer
can all take null
as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object
is the super-type of char
, the array version is more specific than the Object
-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char
version will be chosen.
When both the char
and Integer
versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object
but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null
or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object
).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null
, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
add a comment |
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object
, char
and Integer
can all take null
as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object
is the super-type of char
, the array version is more specific than the Object
-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char
version will be chosen.
When both the char
and Integer
versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object
but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null
or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object
).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null
, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
add a comment |
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object
, char
and Integer
can all take null
as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object
is the super-type of char
, the array version is more specific than the Object
-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char
version will be chosen.
When both the char
and Integer
versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object
but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null
or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object
).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null
, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object
, char
and Integer
can all take null
as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object
is the super-type of char
, the array version is more specific than the Object
-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char
version will be chosen.
When both the char
and Integer
versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object
but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null
or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object
).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null
, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.
edited Jun 1 '17 at 3:40
Jake Millington
90111
90111
answered Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
Joachim SauerJoachim Sauer
239k50486562
239k50486562
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
add a comment |
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
1
1
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
This is stated for Java 7. Does that also apply to previous Java versions? I mean: If you have several method signatures with parameters only along a type hierarchy, than you are on the save side with null as actual value? And if you have built a "hierarchy for" like in the example here, then you are not?
– Christian Gosch
Feb 13 '15 at 12:29
2
2
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
I'm pretty sure those rules are the same for at least everything since Java 1.1 (except for the addition of generics, obviously).
– Joachim Sauer
Feb 13 '15 at 15:04
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Does this mean that if compiler were to choose in between doSomething(String str) and doSomething(Object obj) during runtime with doSomething(null), doSomething(String str) will be called.
– Sameer
Nov 10 '16 at 9:22
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
Thanks a lot, this saved my interview :)
– roottraveller
Sep 25 '17 at 10:34
add a comment |
Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null
argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null
arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.
1
OnlyInteger
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.
– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods withnull
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that onlyInteger - char
pair is ambiguous.
– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what aboutdoSomething(null)
forpublic static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.
– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
add a comment |
Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null
argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null
arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.
1
OnlyInteger
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.
– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods withnull
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that onlyInteger - char
pair is ambiguous.
– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what aboutdoSomething(null)
forpublic static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.
– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
add a comment |
Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null
argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null
arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.
Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null
argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null
arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.
edited Mar 8 '11 at 8:23
answered Mar 8 '11 at 7:58
jmgjmg
6,19611421
6,19611421
1
OnlyInteger
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.
– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods withnull
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that onlyInteger - char
pair is ambiguous.
– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what aboutdoSomething(null)
forpublic static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.
– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
add a comment |
1
OnlyInteger
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.
– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods withnull
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that onlyInteger - char
pair is ambiguous.
– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what aboutdoSomething(null)
forpublic static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.
– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
1
1
Only
Integer
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
Only
Integer
-char
pair is ambiguous, because in other two cases, Java compiler can choose most specific choice, like @JoachimSauer described.– kajacx
Aug 11 '15 at 6:54
1
1
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods with
null
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that only Integer - char
pair is ambiguous.– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
@kajacx: OPs original question was about calling these methods with
null
as parameter. Under that precondition, all three pairs are ambiguous. For the general case, I agree that only Integer - char
pair is ambiguous.– jmg
Sep 15 '15 at 5:51
what about
doSomething(null)
for public static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
what about
doSomething(null)
for public static void doSomething(String str) { System.out.println("String called"); }
This will return string called.– Sameer
Nov 7 '16 at 15:13
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
Is it possible to use an anotation like "nullable" or "not nullable" and set up the declarations so only the one method you want to get a null with so that an explicit "null" (yet implicit null type) argument always unambiguously selects a specific overload ??
– peterk
Jul 18 '17 at 21:43
add a comment |
null
is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null)
or doSomething((Integer)null)
instead.
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
add a comment |
null
is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null)
or doSomething((Integer)null)
instead.
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
add a comment |
null
is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null)
or doSomething((Integer)null)
instead.
null
is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null)
or doSomething((Integer)null)
instead.
answered Mar 8 '11 at 7:58
Lars NoschinskiLars Noschinski
3,4521229
3,4521229
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
add a comment |
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
I removed the method with Integer parameter, it's invoking the function and returning output as "Array Called", so what's the contract between Array and Object?
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:01
2
2
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
Java arrays are also Objects.
– Zds
Mar 8 '11 at 8:53
add a comment |
Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.
add a comment |
Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.
add a comment |
Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.
Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.
answered Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
AnkitAnkit
2,50211525
2,50211525
add a comment |
add a comment |
I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.
add a comment |
I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.
add a comment |
I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.
I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.
edited Jun 30 '17 at 6:30
ItamarG3
3,48262039
3,48262039
answered Jul 30 '14 at 15:57
Jafar AliJafar Ali
677830
677830
add a comment |
add a comment |
there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char obj) and doSomething(Integer obj) .
char and Integer both are same superior for null thats why they are in ambiguous .
add a comment |
there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char obj) and doSomething(Integer obj) .
char and Integer both are same superior for null thats why they are in ambiguous .
add a comment |
there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char obj) and doSomething(Integer obj) .
char and Integer both are same superior for null thats why they are in ambiguous .
there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char obj) and doSomething(Integer obj) .
char and Integer both are same superior for null thats why they are in ambiguous .
answered Nov 4 '17 at 0:41
chitrendra chaudharychitrendra chaudhary
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
class Sample{
public static void main (String args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char and Integer
add a comment |
class Sample{
public static void main (String args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char and Integer
add a comment |
class Sample{
public static void main (String args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char and Integer
class Sample{
public static void main (String args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char and Integer
answered Aug 4 '18 at 13:14
nagarjuna chimakurthinagarjuna chimakurthi
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f5229809%2fmethod-overloading-for-null-argument%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Just change the
Integer
toint
.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 7:59
2
@Mudassir: and what exactly would that solve?
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:02
2
@Joachim Sauer: If changed from Integer to int, then null isn't referred to primitive types in Java, so the compiler will not throw error.
– Phani
Mar 8 '11 at 8:05
Oh right, I missed that.
– Joachim Sauer
Mar 8 '11 at 8:06
@Joachim Sauer: It'll not throw the
reference to doSomething is ambiguous
error.– Mudassir
Mar 8 '11 at 8:09