On 10/8/19 8:37 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2019-10-08 18:57, Kazunori Ogata wrote:
Hi Claes,
Thank you for your review and comment.
I was also wondering why only these two fields aren't initialized in the
constructor. Shall I also make the change you mentioned?
I think it might be better as a follow-up, since there might exist some
reason not to do that cleanup at all and I don't think we should hold up
this improvement.
Perhaps the decision for methodAccessor to be absent from constructor
was the fact that it starts as null and can later be set also in the
following direction:
root.methodAccessor = this.methodAccessor;
...in this case the `root` has already been constructed and `this` is
what is being constructed. I prefer only one way of setting a particular
field instead of two ways.
Regards, Peter
Thanks!
/Claes
