Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 51323
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T16:43:57+00:00 2026-05-10T16:43:57+00:00

The following method does not work because the inner block declares a variable of

  • 0

The following method does not work because the inner block declares a variable of the same name as one in the outer block. Apparently variables belong to the method or class in which they are declared, not to the block in which they are declared, so I therefore can’t write a short little temporary block for debugging that happens to push a variable in the outer scope off into shadow just for a moment:

void methodName() {   int i = 7;   for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++) {     int i = j * 2;   } } 

Almost every block-scoped language I’ve ever used supported this, including trivial little languages that I wrote interpreters and compilers for in school. Perl can do this, as can Scheme, and even C. Even PL/SQL supports this!

What’s the rationale for this design decision for Java?

Edit: as somebody pointed out, Java does have block-scoping. What’s the name for the concept I’m asking about? I wish I could remember more from those language-design classes. 🙂

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-10T16:43:57+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 4:43 pm

    I believe the rationale is that most of the time, that isn’t intentional, it is a programming or logic flaw.

    in an example as trivial as yours, its obvious, but in a large block of code, accidentally redeclaring a variable may not be obvious.

    ETA: it might also be related to exception handling in java. i thought part of this question was discussed in a question related to why variables declared in a try section were not available in the catch/finally scopes.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 80k
  • Answers 80k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I've solved the problem at the moment by replacing the… May 11, 2026 at 4:14 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I think (although can't be certain) that you're talking about… May 11, 2026 at 4:14 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Well, the least "moving parts" would be to do the… May 11, 2026 at 4:14 pm

Related Questions

I'm tring to build a library for simplifing late binding calls in C#, and
I have the following ActiveRecord classes: class User < ActiveRecord::Base cattr_accessor :current_user has_many :batch_records
Am I correct in thinking the following snippet does not work (the array items
Given a class hierarchy where the base class defines a recursive self-type: abstract class

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.