That seems to make sense to me, but on the other hand one could probably argue that if you have a subclass with no init(), not having the init() method show up in the API documentation for your subclass at all is just about as bad.
On 5/10/06, Chris Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Coupling is evil. If I have a subclass that doesn't need custominitialization, why couple the signature of the init method to thesuperclass's?Um, I just have to fail to see how if you extend a class the inherited class is 'decoupled' from the super class, sorry...On May 10, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote:Coupling is evil. If I have a subclass that doesn't need custom
initialization, why couple the signature of the init method to the
superclass's?

