About Question enthuware.ocpjp.v8.2.1311 :

[crazymind]

Code: Select all

Non-static nested classes, unlike normal package classes, can have any type of accessibility. 

But in Jeanne Boyarsky, Scott Selikoff' book says this regarding Local inner class:

They do not have an access specifier.
They cannot be declared static and cannot declare static fields or methods.

I am not quite sure which one is correct. The non-static inner class can have constant members but no static methods are allowed, right? What about access modifier? thank you!

[admin]

Observe the statements carefully. First one says non static nested classes and second one says local inner classes. Both are correct.

[crazymind]

Observe the statements carefully. First one says non static nested classes and second one says local inner classes. Both are correct.

Non-static nested classes, unlike normal package classes, can have any type of accessibility.

But in Jeanne Boyarsky, Scott Selikoff' book says this regarding Local inner class:

They do not have an access specifier.
They cannot be declared static and cannot declare static fields or methods.

Are these two conflict each other regarding the access modifier? Thanks

[admin]

Non static nested class:
class Outer{
public|private|protected class Inner{ <<---- Any access modifier
}
}

Local Inner Class :
someMethod(){

class LocalInnerClass { <<--- can't have any access modifer

}

}

[crazymind]

Non static nested class:
class Outer{
public|private|protected class Inner{ <<---- Any access modifier
}
}

Local Inner Class :
someMethod(){

class LocalInnerClass { <<--- can't have any access modifer

}

}

Thanks, that's what I thought in the first place. I am confused since the solution says non-static classes can have any access modifier but it should exclude local inner class.

[admin]

Sure, enhanced the statement to avoid the confusion.
thank you for your feedback!