Inherited method returning bad value

I have the following code:

Code:

---

class A {
int n = 0;
int foo(){
  return n;
}
}

class B extends A {
int n = 5;
}

---

and now when I write

Code:

---

A b = new B();
b.foo();

---

, I expect it to return a value of 5, but it returns 0.

I think the problem lies somewhere in the upcasting of "b" to an "A" class, but I do not want to cast it like this:

Code:

---

((B)b).foo()

---

because besides the B class I have also another similar classes that extend the "A" class, so that would be solvable only by using multiple ifs, which is of course against the basic principles of OOP (polymorphism).

I hope you understand what I mean. So the question again is: How do I get b.foo() to return 5 ?

I think you may have a misunderstanding about polymorphisms in Java. While methods can be polymorphic, variables cannot. Your output is the expected output in this situation.

A solution:

Code:

---

class A2 {
  int n;
  A2(int n) {
    this.n = n;
  }
 
  int foo() {
    return n;
  }
}

class B2 extends A2 {
 B2(int n) {
  super(n);
 }
}

---

Ah, I didn't know that variables cannot be polymorphic. But then how do I make the classes extending the A class to use their "own variable n" in the foo() method? Because now it seems that since foo() is defined in the A class, it uses the A's "n" variable.

Oh, I see you posted the solution first. I didn't want to solve this by using parameters, but anyway, thanks :)

Since, in a "proper" implementation, a child class shouldn't access the attributes of a parent directly, then you won't get this problem...

What do you mean by "proper implementation" ? Using setters/getters and private/protected fields? I tried this, but it didn't help.
And you also mentioned child classes accessing their parent's attributes, but I think in my case it's quite the opposite: parent (the foo method) is accessing its child's variable (b.n)

Which a parent cannot do...which is how OO works. A parent cannot know about a child.
Which is why your parent does not know about the "n" attribute declared in the child...how can it?

OK, this is how I solved it:

Code:

---

abstract class A {
        int n = 0;

        protected int foo(int value){
                return value;
        }
       
        abstract int foo();
}


class B extends A {
        int n = 5;

        int foo(){
                return super.foo(this.n);
        }
}

---

It looks a bit more complicated, but the main thing is, that it works now :)

It looks FUBAR to me. Sorry. :(

Quite.
Why does B need the same attribute as A?
If it's supposed to represent the same attribute then why not simply use the one in A?

Yeah, it is kinda overcomplicated. Fubarables solution is a pretty standard way to deal with inheritance and is simpler and easier to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viking90

What do you mean by "proper implementation" ? Using setters/getters and private/protected fields?

---

you're right. if you access member variables directly this result in a high coupling and poor encapsulation which is not wanted in oo. to avoid this declare your class variables private and implement public getters and setters to get and changing the variables.