Questioning design decision in java.lang.Character

Question

Having a look at the source code for java.lang.Character, I have the Character class explicitly extends Object
I am using jre1.6.0_07 on window XP
Now the question is what is the reason for such a decision and we all know that any class implicitly extends Object class.
public final class Character extends Object implements java.io.Serializable, Comparable<Character> {
}Regards,
Alan Mehio
London, UK
Edited by: alan_mehio on 24-Jul-2009 12:31

Answer 1

I cannot answer with anything but personal intuition, and give non-conclusive details:
first this is not a design decision, merely a style decision, since, as you mention, any class implicitly extends directly java.lang.Object if not explicitly extending anything else (and at the bytecode level, the source-level difference is undetectable).
As far as style is concerned, I would have assumed that the whole JDK team is required to strictly follow consistent rules, but different classes suggest otherwise.
Sun's public [Code Conventions for the JavaTM Programming Language|http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc5.html#2991] do not have an explicit rule about this; section +6.4 Class and Interface Declarations+ provide an example with an extends Object clause, but the rule is not explicit in the text; and the previous section 5.2 does provide an example without this clause...
I went on speculating that the developpers for the Character class had a special intent in mind, as they override Object methods equals() and hascode(), but other class in the same package do the same without the explicit extends Object clause (Void, System, Number). At that step I gave up trying to find a reason other than the developers' own style...