On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, matthew.hawthorne wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote: > > The constructor for MutableNumber is odd. > > > > It's > > > > a) Empty, so possible to have a MutableNumber without a value yet. > > b) package-scoped, so only we can extend it. > > > > I'm not sure if there are good uses for a), but b) seems like something we > > don't need to do. > > I guess I didn't think that anyone would want to create a MutableNumber, > they would opt for the more specific MutableInteger, MutableFloat, etc. I don't think they would either, though it is feasible I guess so not worth making the class abstract. I meant that the package-scoped constructor meant that people can't add empty constructors to subclasses. > But if that's not the case, then the package scoping is too restrictive and > should be changed to public. The default (empty) constructor doesn't > make sense to me either, maybe it was just an oversight. Easy to kill. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
