Why don't Java's +=, -=, *=, /= compound assignment operators require casting?

Until today, I thought that for example:

i += j;

Was just a shortcut for:

i = i + j;

But if we try this:

int i = 5;
long j = 8;

Then i = i + j; will not compile but i += j; will compile fine.

Does it mean that in fact i += j; is a shortcut for something like this i = (type of i) (i + j)?

Solution 1:

As always with these questions, the JLS holds the answer. In this case §15.26.2 Compound Assignment Operators. An extract:

A compound assignment expression of the form E1 op= E2 is equivalent to E1 = (T)((E1) op (E2)), where T is the type of E1, except that E1 is evaluated only once.

An example cited from §15.26.2

[...] the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);

In other words, your assumption is correct.

Solution 2:

A good example of this casting is using *= or /=

byte b = 10;
b *= 5.7;
System.out.println(b); // prints 57

byte b = 100;
b /= 2.5;
System.out.println(b); // prints 40

char ch = '0';
ch *= 1.1;
System.out.println(ch); // prints '4'

char ch = 'A';
ch *= 1.5;
System.out.println(ch); // prints 'a'

Solution 3:

Very good question. The Java Language specification confirms your suggestion.

For example, the following code is correct:
short x = 3;
x += 4.6;
and results in x having the value 7 because it is equivalent to:
short x = 3;
x = (short)(x + 4.6);

Solution 4:

Yes,

basically when we write

i += l;

the compiler converts this to

i = (int)(i + l);

I just checked the .class file code.

Really a good thing to know

Solution 5:

you need to cast from long to int explicitly in case of i = i + l then it will compile and give correct output. like

i = i + (int)l;

i = (int)((long)i + l); // this is what happens in case of += , dont need (long) casting since upper casting is done implicitly.

but in case of += it just works fine because the operator implicitly does the type casting from type of right variable to type of left variable so need not cast explicitly.