erik.corry at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 10:42:48 PDT 2011
2011/11/2 Quildreen Motta <quildreen at gmail.com>:
>> I don't think hard coding the name of the super-constructor is a
> to an object, they are generic. You can simply assign any function to any
> object and it'll most likely just work.
I think the chances are slim that you can take a function that does a
super call, put it on a different object, and it will 'just work'.
It's a pretty rare case.
<troll> C++ requires you to state the name of the super-class in super
calls, and Java doesn't. Do we want to be like Java? </troll>
More information about the es-discuss