Types of access specifiers in Java: public private protected friendly or package or default Access Modifiers: Modifiers determine or define how the data members and methods are used in other classes and objects. Modifiers in Java: static final abstract native synchronized The main difference between access specifiers and modifiers is that access specifiers define the accessibility of the data members in a class and modifiers determine how these methods are used and modified by other classes.
Still wrong. Don't you people read the thread? There is no such thing as an access specifier in Java. Post New Answer. I have a class which is abstract which contains only the abstract methods. This is similar to an interface. Then, if i have given a choice to choose one of them. Which one i have to choose and why? Answers were Sorted based on User's Feedback what is the Diff. Is This Answer Correct? The access specifier determines how accessible the field is to code in other classes.
Access ranges from totally accessible to totally inaccessible. You can optionally declare a field with an access specifier keyword: public, private, or protected. Is there any difference at all? Because most definitions for access modifiers and access specifiers state the same thing.. In this context, you can think of access specifiers as protection specifiers -- they specify where a variable can be accessed from.
By contrast, access modifiers are completely different; they specify how variables should or should not be accessed; e. However, I'm a little surprised that the terminology is for C , since Microsoft actually calls public and private " access modifiers ", and it calls volatile and readonly just plain " modifiers ".
As far as I can see, there is no difference at all between the terms. C does not has some word like "access specifier" but it call modifiers or access modifiers for modifiers that use to control access level. I think, this question like you ask me that what difference between package and namespace is. By contrast, access modifiers are completely different; they specify how variables should or should not be accessed; e.
However, I'm a little surprised that the terminology is for C , since Microsoft actually calls public and private " access modifiers ", and it calls volatile and readonly just plain " modifiers ". To answer that question, I'd like to describe member's accessors first in my own words. If you already know this, skip to the heading "next:". There are three accessors that I'm aware of: public , protected and private.
The same happens with public, private and protected inheritance. Let's consider a class Base and a class Child that inherits from Base. Design patterns are sometimes called "idioms". Sometimes, they're called "algorithms". Every language indeed, every discipline has patterns of designing solutions.
If you've seen something two or three times, you've seen a pattern. If you can describe the context, the problem, the solution and consequences, you've elevated the pattern from something vague to something concrete and specific. In non-OO languages, the patterns aren't often named and catalogued. Don't know why this would be the case, it seems to be so. In Delphi there's a "bug" that makes the visibility of all members public within the same unit.
The strict keyword corrects this behaviour, so that private is actually private, even within a single unit. For good encapsulation I would recommend always using the strict keyword.
C handles anonymous methods and closures by making them into instance methods of an anonymous nested class, instantiating this class, and then pointing delegates at those instance methods. It appears that this anonymous class can only ever be instantiated once or am I wrong about that?
In cases where that would be legal, C does you one better. It doesn't make a closure class at all. It makes the anonymous function a static function of the current class. And yes you are wrong about that. In cases where you can get away with only allocating the delegate once, C does get away with it. This is not strictly speaking entirely true; there are some obscure cases where this optimization is not implemented.
But for the most part it is.
0コメント