> > While we're thinking about constructors, can I raise something > I've been meaning to ask for ages? The constructor is, in > many respects, a static method. If new() could be treated > truly as a static method, then we could get this rather > convenient idiom: > > class C;... > class D extends C; ... > ... > C c; > c = D::new(); > > Is there any fundamental problem with this that I've missed? > -- > Jonathan Bromley, Consultant [DR] Except that the "this" handle is not available in static methods, and needs to be available in a constructor. Dave -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jun 25 10:55:46 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 25 2008 - 10:55:55 PDT