Sounds reasonable. I'll make the code change, but I don't think there
is a checkstyle rule that will enforce it.
On 6/26/05, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Log:
> > corrected style issues (mostly empty blocks and missing javadocs)
> > * <p>Restrictive constructor.</p>
> > */
> > private Entry() {
> > + ; // empty constructor
> > }
> > }
>
> I would suggest the following as a more logical way to handle this
>
> private Entry() {
> + super();
> }
>
> Personally, I believe that constructors should always have a this() or
> super(), and in fact that is the checkstyle rule I would prefer to see ;-)
>
> Stephen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Steven Caswell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take back the web - http://www.mozilla.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
