Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25724
| From | Owen Jacobson <angrybaldguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Message-ID | <201102042139219025-angrybaldguy@gmailcom> (permalink) |
| References | <iii71v$3ud$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| Subject | Re: Why “new”? |
| Date | 2011-02-04 21:39 -0500 |
On 2011-02-04 19:53:19 -0500, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said: > Java defines no meaning for “classname(args)” different from “new > classname(args)”. Not so. The former is parsed as a method call; the latter as a new-instance expression. Nothing, save good sense, prevents you from naming a method the same thing as a class (either the class containing it or some other class entirely). A better comparison would've been to languages like Python, where class creation is little more than another kind of function call (both syntactically and semantically), or to Smalltalk, where instance creation is defined somewhat independently for each class in the system via a class method (and "core" library classes like Object provide the real machinery via virtual class methods, something absent from Java). -o
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: Why “new”? Owen Jacobson <angrybaldguy@gmail.com> - 2011-02-04 21:39 -0500
csiph-web