commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: [httpclient][patch] StatusLine encapsulation
Date Thu, 05 Sep 2002 02:50:42 GMT
jsdever wrote on 05/09/2002 09:42:10 AM:

> dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> 
> > Ryan Lubke <Ryan.Lubke@sun.com> wrote on 04/09/2002 11:40:09 PM:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 09:36, Jeff Dever wrote:
> > > > What you say is true Ryan, but the question is "if I write a
> > constructor, is
> > > > super() called implicitly in that constructor?"  I don't know the
> > answer to
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > My point was that I don't believe super() will be added to all
> > > constructors by default as Ortwin seemed to imply.  My point was 
what
> > > you write is what you get in the case of declared constructors.
> > Well, your beliefs need changing :) If you don't call a constructor as 
the
> > first executable line of code in a constructor, the compiler adds one 
in
> > for you: super()
> 
> Ok, but what if the base class has a declared constructor, but no 
constructor
> with zero arguments?  The compiler will not write one for you in thebase 
class
> because what you see is what you get in that case.  An implicit call to
> super() would be to a non-existant function.
And you'll get a compile error.........
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message