Yes, it's already implemented in this way for #603.
Best regards,
Valentin Kipiatkov
-----------------------------------------------------------
IntelliJ Software, http://www.intellij.com/
"Develop with pleasure"
-----------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Eap-list] #602: annoyance, private constructor for utility
class
> 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
_______________________________________________
Eap-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list
