ONJava.com -- The Independent Source for Enterprise Java
oreilly.comSafari Books Online.Conferences.

advertisement

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Article:
  10 Reasons We Need Java 3.0
Subject:   Idea about constructor naming
Date:   2002-08-06 07:20:04
From:   mcmilwj
I've always wondered why constructors need to be named with the name of the class. Why not use a generic identifier: this() or ctor()...scratch that (no abbreviations right): constructor() for the default and overloads too. Whenever I've wanted to change the name of a class, it has seemed to me that having to rename all your constructors was kind of silly. Why are we forced to state the name of the class in multiple locations? Just a thought.

1 to 1 of 1
1 to 1 of 1