Yes, I agree. Please don't highlight a private constructor, if and only if
this one exists.
Tom
At 18:48 08.02.2002 -0500, you wrote:
>It's a common practice to use a single private no-arg constructor
>for utility classes (with only static members) to prevent erroneous
>instantiation (as another side effect, this private constructor doesn't
>show up in Javadoc if you show as usual only public, protected and
>package-level
>members).
>
>In #602, IDEA marks it (single private no-arg constructor) as
>an unused private member ("Private method UtilityClass is never used").
>It will be cool if a single no-arg constructor for the class that has
>only static members wasn't marked as an unused member
>(in a way it's used, it hides the constructor). It's a valid use.
>
>There's a workaround. You can declare the class final and then have a
>package-level
>(instead of private) constructor. But it will appear in Javadoc if you show
>public,
>protected and package-level members.
>
>
>Timur Zambalayev
_______________________________________________
Eap-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list
