Need clarification on Object.equals.

Discussion in 'Java' started by plewto@gmail.com, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. Guest

    In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
    Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
    a.equals(b) is returning true.

    public class Foo {
    public static void main(String[] argv){
    Node a = new Gate();
    Monitor b = new Monitor();
    System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
    }
    }

    The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My
    understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
    exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.


    I did do a test stripped down to the bare essence:

    public class Foo {
    public static void main(String[] argv){
    Foo a = new Bar();
    Foo b = new Bar();
    System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'false'
    }
    }
    class Bar extends Foo {}

    In this case the results are as I expected, a.equals(b) --> false

    What could be going on here?

    java version 1.7.0_06 on 64-bit Fedora 17
     
    , Dec 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roedy Green Guest

    On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:27 +0000, lipska the kat
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
    who said :

    >> Node a = new Gate();
    >> Monitor b = new Monitor();
    >> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'


    Gate or one of its superclasses is implementing equals.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
    Students who hire or con others to do their homework are as foolish
    as couch potatoes who hire others to go to the gym for them.
     
    Roedy Green, Dec 18, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. markspace Guest

    On 12/18/2012 12:13 AM, wrote:
    > Node a = new Gate();
    > Monitor b = new Monitor();
    > System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

    ....
    > The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My


    This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
    show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
    the issue is the complexity itself.

    However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
    abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
    *incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
    should not implement equals() at all.

    Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    and we'll point out the error.
     
    markspace, Dec 18, 2012
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:
    > On 12/18/2012 12:13 AM,
    >
    > > Node a = new Gate();

    >
    > > Monitor b = new Monitor();

    >
    > > System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

    >
    > ...
    >
    > > The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My

    >
    >
    >
    > This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
    >
    > show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
    >
    > the issue is the complexity itself.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
    >
    > abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
    >
    > *incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
    >
    > should not implement equals() at all.
    >
    >
    >
    > Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    >
    > that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    >
    > and we'll point out the error.


    It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point. Node does not implement equals at all as you say
     
    , Dec 18, 2012
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:39:27 AM UTC-6, lipska the kat wrote:
    > On 18/12/12 08:13,
    >
    > > In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and

    >
    > > Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet

    >
    > > a.equals(b) is returning true.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > public class Foo {

    >
    > > public static void main(String[] argv){

    >
    > > Node a = new Gate();

    >
    > > Monitor b = new Monitor();

    >
    > > System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'

    >
    > > }

    >
    > > }

    >
    >
    >
    > According to the documentation the contract for equals on instances of
    >
    > class Object is as follows
    >
    >
    >
    > "The equals method for class Object implements the most discriminating
    >
    > possible equivalence relation on objects; that is, for any non-null
    >
    > reference values x and y, this method returns true if and only if x and
    >
    > y refer to the same object (x == y has the value true)."
    >
    >
    >
    > This is obviously the not the case in your example above.
    >
    > Does the class Node or any of it's superclasses override the equals method ?
    >
    >
    >
    > The following code returns false as expected
    >
    >
    >
    > public abstract class Foo {
    >
    >
    >
    > public static void main(String args[]){
    >
    > Foo bar = new Bar();
    >
    > Baz baz = new Baz();
    >
    > System.out.println(bar.equals(baz));
    >
    > }
    >
    > }
    >
    >
    >
    > class Bar extends Foo{}
    >
    >
    >
    > class Baz extends Foo{}
    >
    >
    >
    > ...
    >
    >
    >
    > However, add the following method to the class Foo
    >
    >
    >
    > public boolean equals(Object obj){
    >
    > return true;
    >
    > }
    >
    >
    >
    > and re-run the code and we get true.
    >
    >
    >
    > Has someone been messing with equals ?
    >
    >
    >
    > lipska
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Lipska the Kat�: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
    >
    > and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun


    Thanks for your response,

    I see where the problem is. I do not directly implement equals, however Node is an extension of AbstractSet which does redefine equals. As it turns out I was in the process of rewriting Node so that it no longer extends AbsteractSet when the anomaly popped up in test code, so it is actually a mote point.
     
    , Dec 18, 2012
    #5
  6. David Lamb Guest

    On 18/12/2012 1:48 PM, wrote:
    > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:
    >> Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    >> that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    >> and we'll point out the error.

    >
    > It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines
    > of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point. Node

    does not implement equals
    > at all as you say


    Roedy suggested Gate, not Node, might implement "equals". Does it?

    There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The
    "6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them
    alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might
    be the best advice you're going to get.
     
    David Lamb, Dec 18, 2012
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:51 PM UTC-6, David Lamb wrote:
    > On 18/12/2012 1:48 PM, p...mail.com wrote:
    >
    > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:

    >
    > >> Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,

    >
    > >> that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)

    >
    > >> and we'll point out the error.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines

    >
    > > of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point. Node

    >
    > does not implement equals
    >
    > > at all as you say

    >
    >
    >
    > Roedy suggested Gate, not Node, might implement "equals". Does it?
    >
    >
    >
    > There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The
    >
    > "6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them
    >
    > alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might
    >
    > be the best advice you're going to get.


    Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, noneof my code defines equals, Node was however extending AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85, none of which even once mentions the word "equals"

    My issue with Roedy's response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rather condescending.
     
    , Dec 18, 2012
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:14:58 PM UTC-6, wrote:
    > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:51 PM UTC-6, David Lamb wrote:
    >
    > > On 18/12/2012 1:48 PM, p...mail.com wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> and we'll point out the error.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point. Node

    >
    > >

    >
    > > does not implement equals

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > at all as you say

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Roedy suggested Gate, not Node, might implement "equals". Does it?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them

    >
    > >

    >
    > > alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might

    >
    > >

    >
    > > be the best advice you're going to get.

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was a general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85, none of which even once mentions the word "equals"
    >
    >
    >
    > My issue with Roedy's response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rathercondescending.


    Im sorry I meant markspace's responce not Roedy's
     
    , Dec 18, 2012
    #8
  9. Stefan Ram Guest

    writes:
    >Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a
    >subsequent post, none of my code defines equals, Node was
    >however extending AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really
    >All I was looking for was a general direction I might look


    The general direction would be to look up the documentation
    of »Gate«, especially Gate#equals.

    >>>>> public static void main(String[] argv){
    >>>>> Node a = new Gate();
    >>>>> Monitor b = new Monitor();
    >>>>> System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
    >>>>> }
    >>>>>}
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The underlying production code is a bit complex to include
    >>>>>here. My understanding is that equals is true if, and only if,
    >>>>>a and b are exactly the same object. Here they are not even
    >>>>>the same class.


    The following also prints »true« for possibly good reasons
    (depending on the semantics of the classes, which is not
    given here). At least it shows that this can happen without
    overriding »equals«.

    class Node extends java.io.File{ public Node(){ super( "alpha" ); }}
    class Gate extends Node{}
    class Monitor extends Node{}

    public class Main
    { public static void main( final java.lang.String[] args )
    { Node a = new Gate();
    Monitor b = new Monitor();
    java.lang.System.out.println( a.equals( b )); }}
     
    Stefan Ram, Dec 18, 2012
    #9
  10. Lew Guest

    ple...@com wrote:

    > My issue with [markspace]'s response was not the helpful suggestion to look at super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing, and frankly rather condescending.


    Wow. You really are a piece of work.

    You come here asking people to volunteer assistance to you out of the goodness of their hearts.

    markspace wrote nothing at all to justify your remark. He was objective, and offered to review
    your code for you. He gave you advice on how to present the code so that
    kind volunteers can help. You respond with this garbage instead of thanks?

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    > My understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
    > exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.


    That's your misunderstanding. How about you read the Java tutorials to find out
    what the truth is about 'equals()'?

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Dec 18, 2012
    #10
  11. Jim Janney Guest

    writes:

    >
    > Thanks for your response,
    >
    > I see where the problem is. I do not directly implement equals, however Node is an extension of AbstractSet which does redefine equals. As it turns out I was in the process of rewriting Node so that it no longer extends AbsteractSet when the anomaly popped up in test code, so it is actually a mote point.


    And in terms of set equality the test objects are indeed equal, since
    each represents the empty set.

    --
    Jim Janney
     
    Jim Janney, Dec 18, 2012
    #11
  12. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/18/2012 3:13 AM, wrote:
    > In the following code Node is an abstract class and both Gate and
    > Monitor are extensions of Node. a and b are distinct objects yet
    > a.equals(b) is returning true.
    >
    > public class Foo {
    > public static void main(String[] argv){
    > Node a = new Gate();
    > Monitor b = new Monitor();
    > System.out.println(a.equals(b)); // --> prints 'true'
    > }
    > }
    >
    > The underlying production code is a bit complex to include here. My
    > understanding is that equals is true if, and only if, a and b are
    > exactly the same object. Here they are not even the same class.


    If you post complete code illustrating the problem, then
    it can be solved in a few minutes.

    Our telepathic abilities are not very good.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #12
  13. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, wrote:
    > It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post
    > the several hundred lines of source or the the 6 which adequately
    > illustrates the point. Node does not implement equals at all as you
    > say


    Those 6 lines are completely inadequate for any type of troubleshooting.

    They contain zero new information compared to your description of the
    problem in English.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #13
  14. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:
    > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:14:58 PM UTC-6, wrote:
    >> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:51 PM UTC-6, David Lamb wrote:
    >>> On 18/12/2012 1:48 PM, p...mail.com wrote:
    >>>> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:24:44 PM UTC-6, markspace wrote:
    >>>>> Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    >>>>> that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    >>>>> and we'll point out the error.
    >>>> It is complex because it is a large application. I can either post the several hundred lines
    >>>> of source or the the 6 which adequately illustrates the point.
    >>> There's likely not much people can do to help without more context. The
    >>> "6 lines" don't adequately "illustrate the point" because from them
    >>> alone nobody can say for sure what your problem is. Roedy's guess might
    >>> be the best advice you're going to get.

    >>
    >> Yes I understand that. In fact, as I pointed out in a subsequent
    >> post, none of my code defines equals, Node was however extending
    >> AbstractSet which does redefine it. Really All I was looking for was a
    >> general direction I might look and not to burden anyone with large
    >> blocks of code. Node is 212 lines, Gate is 67, Monitor another 85, none
    >> of which even once mentions the word "equals"
    >>
    >> My issue with Roedy's response was not the helpful suggestion to
    >> lookat super classes but rather that it comes off as lecturing,
    >> and frankly rather condescending.

    >
    > Im sorry I meant markspace's responce not Roedy's


    You had a problem.

    A problem which is relative easy to troubleshoot with
    some basic Java knowledge.

    You posted the problem here with absolutely no information
    to help identify the problem.

    What do you expect?

    We can not do anything but provide some guesses the presence of
    an equals in a class or parent class - and explain some basics
    about how equals work.

    So stop whining and learn to post better questions.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #14
  15. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/19/2012 5:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    > On 19/12/12 03:16, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 12/18/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>
    >> So stop whining and learn to post better question.

    >
    > Now I'm not normally driven to using bad language but
    > What the f**k is wrong with you people.
    > This is Usenet, not your private little universe.


    > Please think before you flame.


    May I suggest that you take your own advice and
    read and think before posting.

    The case here is that:
    * OP posted a question
    * the question did not provide sufficient info
    to answer it
    * nobody took offense of that and OP got several
    replies explained that it was difficult to say,
    suggested possible reasons and explained how
    equals is supposed to work
    * OP characterized one of the repliers
    as lecturing and condescending

    I suggest that you direct you anger towards OP.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #15
  16. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    > ...
    >> I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been
    >> frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea
    >> that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has
    >> the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting
    >> standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.
    >>
    >> I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly
    >> little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is
    >> so unaffected.

    > ...
    >
    > I strongly agree with this, except I would have preferred "Some people
    > who are regular contributors ...".


    Do you agree that it is acceptable behavior calling a named
    replier lecturing and condescending due to this post:

    <quote>
    This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
    show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
    the issue is the complexity itself.

    However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
    abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
    *incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
    should not implement equals() at all.

    Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    and we'll point out the error.
    <quote>

    ??

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #16
  17. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    >> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    >> ...
    >>> I've noticed this a lot in various newsgroups that I have been
    >>> frequenting of late. People who are regular contributors get the idea
    >>> that foo.bar.baz newsgroup is their private domain and anyone who has
    >>> the temerity to post a question that doesn't meet their exacting
    >>> standards get flamed and scolded and told to stop whining.
    >>>
    >>> I get told off but I have the skin of a Rhino and none of you silly
    >>> little jibes affect me or my life in any way whatsoever. Not everyone is
    >>> so unaffected.

    >> ...
    >>
    >> I strongly agree with this, except I would have preferred "Some people
    >> who are regular contributors ...".

    >
    > Do you agree that it is acceptable behavior calling a named
    > replier lecturing and condescending due to this post:
    >
    > <quote>
    > This is a red flag. The code should not be so complex that you can't
    > show us what is really going on. If it *is* too complex, then likely
    > the issue is the complexity itself.
    >
    > However, I think Roedy zeroed in on the most likely cause. Your
    > abstract class, Node (or some superclass), implements equals()
    > *incorrectly* and is returning true when it should not. Probably Node()
    > should not implement equals() at all.
    >
    > Show us the implementation of equals() for Node (and probably Gate too,
    > that version of equals() could also be borked in the example you gave)
    > and we'll point out the error.
    > <quote>
    >
    > ??


    My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
    stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
    to insult others without being criticized for it" card.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #17
  18. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    > On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    >>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    >>>> ...

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>
    >> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
    >> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
    >> to insult others without being criticized for it" card.


    > Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
    > You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
    > on what is a stupid question and what isn't.


    Congratulations you completely missed the point.

    > This is USENET, you don't own it, you don't have the right to tell
    > people what they can and cannot post,


    And you are trying to do what?

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Dec 19, 2012
    #18
  19. On 12/19/2012 8:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    > On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    >>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    >>>> ...

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>
    >> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
    >> stupid questions" card,

    >
    > Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
    > You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
    > on what is a stupid question and what isn't.


    I would suggest that you finish reading entire posts before starting
    yelling matches, for if you had finished the sentence (assuming basic
    fluency in reading comprehension), you would have learned that Arne was
    opining that the criterion for what should be considered socially
    acceptable by this newsgroup isn't the quality of the question but
    rather by whether or not it is insulting. Also note that there was in no
    way any attempt to delineate specifically what class of questions
    corresponds to "stupid questions," which is apt because the entire point
    of the post was to postulate the nonimportance of such a class.

    Unless you were trying to be ironic.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
    tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
     
    Joshua Cranmer, Dec 19, 2012
    #19
  20. Lars Enderin Guest

    2012-12-19 16:05, lipska the kat skrev:
    > On 19/12/12 14:42, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 12/19/2012 9:36 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    >>> On 19/12/12 14:09, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>> On 12/19/2012 9:07 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>> On 12/19/2012 6:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    >>>>>> On 12/19/2012 2:20 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
    >>>>>> ...
    >>>
    >>> [snip]
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
    >>>> stupid questions" card, then they do not have a "allowed
    >>>> to insult others without being criticized for it" card.

    >>
    >>> Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. Listen to yourself
    >>> You really do think that you are in some way qualified to pass judgment
    >>> on what is a stupid question and what isn't.

    >>
    >> Congratulations you completely missed the point.

    >
    > No I didn't and I quote
    >
    > "My point is that while newbies do have a "allowed to post
    > stupid questions" card"
    >
    > Who 'allows' them to post stupid questions.
    > You ?
    >
    > Who decides who is a newbie
    > You ?
    >
    > Who decides it is a stupid question
    > You ?
    >
    > And before you use the 'community' card
    >
    > Who made you the spokesperson
    > You ?
    >
    > Well ?


    You're overreacting, in a big way (and there should be no space before
    ?). You completely missed the spirit (and point) of Arne's response(s).



    --
    Lars Enderin
     
    Lars Enderin, Dec 19, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Edward A Thompson
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    538
    Tony Morris
    Feb 11, 2004
  2. odwl
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    12,241
    Thomas Hawtin
    Jun 15, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,347
    Richard Senior
    Apr 24, 2007
  4. crazzybugger

    Casting an object in equals Java 5

    crazzybugger, Sep 30, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    3,612
    Andreas Leitgeb
    Oct 4, 2008
  5. Marteno Rodia
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,635
Loading...

Share This Page