Identifiers are well defined by The Java Language Specification, Java SE 7 Edition (§3.8)
An identifier is an unlimited-length sequence of Java letters and Java digits, the first of which must be a Java letter.
As far as I know, since a method name is an identifier, It should be impossible to name a method starting with a digit in java, and javac
respects this rule.
So, why does the Java Virtual Machine seem to not respect this rule by allowing us to name a function starting with numbers, in Bytecode?
This simple snippet will actually print the f99()
method name and the value of its parameter.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test t = new Test();
System.out.println(t.f99(100));
}
public int f99(int i){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[1].getMethodName());
return i;
}
}
Compilation and execution:
$ javac Test.java
$ java Test
Output:
f99
100
It is possible to disassemble the code once compiled, and rename all f99
occurences by 99
(with the help of a tool like reJ).
$ java Test
Output:
99
100
So, is the name of the method actually "99"?
The Java Language Specification restricts the characters in valid method names so as to help make parsing the Java language unambiguous.
The JVM was designed to be able to support languages other than just Java. As such the restrictions should not be the same; unless we wanted to force all non-Java languages to have the same restrictions. The restrictions chosen for the JVM are the minimal set that permit unambiguous parsing of the method signatures, a format that appears in the JVM spec and not the JLS.
Taken from the JVM Spec
a name must not contain any of the ASCII characters . ; [ / < > :
That is, the following is a valid JVM signatures [Lcom/foo/Bar;
, and its special characters have been excluded from method names.
<>
was further reserved to separate special JVM methods from application methods, specifically <init>
and <clinit>
, which are both method names that the JLS does not permit.