> hmmm... that would go against my taste of chaining from the constructor > with the least parameters to the constructor with the most parameters. > I'd just tend to chose the constructor with the most complex signature > as the default constructor, doing the 'real' construction part of the > object construction and the others chained towards it, using default or > null values.
I think I would typically do that too, though there are no hard rules for this, so it doesn't matter much in the end. Chaining like that doesn't work for constructors who assume that if their form is used, the passed in arguments are not null. Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
