Sub-typing on Primitive types in Java

So if int is a subtype of long, then code written for variables of type long can also be safely used on variables of type int.

OK ... I can see how that is a valid characterization of subtyping.

However, this is not how the JLS actually specifies and uses the subtype relationship <:. In the JLS, subtyping is primarily about the way that values are used.

So, for example, int <: long (int is a subtype of long) means that an int value can be used in a context that requires a long value.

Here are some examples:

 int i = 1;
 long l = i;            // OK - int used where a long is needed
 long ll = i + 1L;      // OK - int used where a long is needed

 public void methodWithLongArg(long arg) { ... }

 methodWithLongArg(i);  // OK - int used where a long is needed

Note that in each of the above, the JLS says that the a primitive widening conversion is used to convert the int value to a long value.

So what about your examples:

long x = 2e63 - 1;   // NOT OK
int i = 2e63 - 1;    // NOT OK

In fact, neither of those are legal Java. The literal 2e63 is a actually a (double) floating point literal. (All literals that use e or E notation are floating point, whether or not there is an explicit decimal point in the literal. And floating point literals without a f or F suffix denote double values.) So 2e63 - 1 evaluates to a double and a double cannot be assigned to a long (or int) unless you explicitly cast it.

That is consistent with the subtyping. The JLS rules mean that long <: double. So that means that a long can be used in a context that requires a double. But in the above, we need a double to be used in a context that requires a long (or int). And that is the opposite of what the subtyping relationships allow.

^{In fact, there is another problem with your example. 263 is written (in decimal) as 9223372036854775808L. And that can only be used if it is preceded by a unary minus operator. Likewise, it is not expressible as a long literal in Java binary, octal or hexadecimal literal syntaxes.}

I think that the real problem is that you are misconstruing what your lecturer has said.

What he is actually saying is that code that has been written for the supertype can be applied to a value of the subtype.

So, in my example, the methodWithLongArg(long arg) method is code that been written for the supertype; i.e. long. It can be used (called) on a value of the subtype; i.e. the value of an int variable.

Am I simply misunderstanding it? Maybe the example I gave is not a valid case of the statement?

Basically, yes. IMO.

I don't think that int is a real sub-type of long or double. They're just the same integer data-type, but each with a different keyword and a different length. Declaring int <: long and long <: double is required, so that these data-types are known to be lossless cast-able into one direction.

Java byte-code shows how such primitive data-types are handled behind the scenes. Generally long and double are nothing but language constructs, because int is the data-type being used:

Note that any referenced "value" refers to a 32-bit int as per the Java instruction set.

For example: Casting from int to long is no problem at all, but when casting from long to int, the binary representation may exceed the digits available to represent the value properly; if the given value is too large, one would need two int in order to represent one long variable (adding them together by their binary complement won't yield the same value, as it would have to be split into two sets of bits). Look at their binary representations ...those should make the topic obvious.