jar tf will list the contents for you. javap will allow you to see more details of the classes (see the tools guide). For instance if you have a class named mypkg.HelloWorld in a jar myjar.jar then run it like javap -classpath myjar.jar mypkg.HelloWorld However, are you sure you want to be using these unpublished … Read more
int* test(); but it would be “more C++” to use vectors: std::vector< int > test(); EDIT I’ll clarify some point. Since you mentioned C++, I’ll go with new[] and delete[] operators, but it’s the same with malloc/free. In the first case, you’ll write something like: int* test() { return new int[size_needed]; } but it’s not … Read more
Liskov Substitution Principle Generally you don’t want you method signature to vary in derived types. This can cause problems if you want to swap the use of derived types. This is often referred to as the Liskov Substitution Principle. Benefits of Explicit Signatures At the same time I don’t think it’s correct for all your … Read more
This is a null-parameter check syntax which was going to be introduced in C# 11. This proposal has since been rolled back following community feedback. The proposal is here, and the PR doing a first roll-out to the runtime is here. The syntax: public void Foo(string bar!!) { } Is roughly equivalent to: public void … Read more
Quoting from Oracle Docs: Definition: Two of the components of a method declaration comprise the method signature—the method’s name and the parameter types. Since the question was edited to include this example: public class Foo { public int myMethod(int param) {} public char myMethod(int param) {} } No, the compiler won’t know the difference, as … Read more
I’m guessing you’ve done something like: class Foo { static void Bar(); }; … static void Foo::Bar() { … } The “static void Foo::Bar” is incorrect. You don’t need the second “static“.