> Inner classes certainly exist Only as a fiction of javac. The JVM has no knowledge of them, other than the InnerClasses attribute that's really just for debugging and reflections.
On Oct 22, 11:17 pm, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: > There's always been Runnable, yes, but there hasn't always been the > cultural emphasis on composition rather than derivation. In other > words, I agree it was a mistake, but it was a mistake born of its > time, and not one that would be as likely to be repeated today. > > Inner classes certainly exist -- they're just broken (only capture > final variables). The sense of unreality to which you refer is just an > implementation technique, and only visible if you peek below the > covers of reality. :) That's true of most any bit of programming > semantics you choose to examine that closely. > > On Oct 22, 5:15 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > But there's always been a Runnable, and it's no more difficult to > > subclass a Runnable than a Thread. Inner classes made it easier (if > > more obscure) to define your subclasses, but didn't change the basic > > nature of the beast. (In fact, in reality inner classes don't exist.) > > > On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
