This question already has an answer here:
If I have code like
public static void main(String args[]){
int x = 0;
while (false) { x=3; } //will not compile
}
compiler will complaint that x=3
is unreachable code but if I have code like
public static void main(String args[]){
int x = 0;
if (false) { x=3; }
for( int i = 0; i< 0; i++) x = 3;
}
then it compiles correctly though the code inside if statement
and for loop
is unreachable. Why is this redundancy not detected by java workflow logic ? Any usecase?
The use case with the if condition is debugging. AFAIK it is explicitly allowed by the spec for
if
-statements (not for loops) to allow code like this:You can later (or via debugger at runtime) change the value of
debug
to get output.EDIT As Christian pointed out in his comment, an answer linking to the spec can be found here.
As described in Java Language Specification, this feature is reserved for "conditional compilation".
An example, described in the JLS, is that you may have a constant
and the code that uses this constant
The idea is to provide a possibility to change
DEBUG
fromtrue
tofalse
easily without making any other changes to the code, which would not be possible if the above code gave a compilation error.if (false) { x=3; } does not result in a compile-time error. An optimizing compiler may realize that the statement x=3; will never be executed and may choose to omit the code for that statement from the generated class file, but the statement x=3; is not regarded as "unreachable" in the technical sense specified here.
The rationale for this differing treatment is to allow programmers to define "flag variables" such as:
static final boolean DEBUG = false; and then write code such as:
if (DEBUG) { x=3; } The idea is that it should be possible to change the value of DEBUG from false to true or from true to false and then compile the code correctly with no other changes to the program text.
Regarding the for loop, I thinks it's just that it's not as easy to detect as the use of a
false
constant inside a while loop.Regarding the
if
, that was a deliberate choice to authorize it in order to be able to remove debugging code from the byte code at compilation time: