On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Mateusz Å?oskot wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:02:27AM +0200, Mateusz à ?oskot wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Is there any rationale behind not including default constructor in > >> Triangle class? I can't see any such. If user would want to create > >> a collection of triangles then the situation becomes quite > >> complex, so I'd suggest to include default constructor. > > > > That's JTS design decision. > > Hmm :-) > I don't get it because construction and initialization in Java is > different than in C++. Consider, default initializator of Object types > is null. In C++ there is no such term as default initializator. > > > I'd be more concerned about it using real Coordinates rather then > > pointers. Do you want to check that ? > > I'm not sure what pointer are you talking about? > I'm talking about Triangle class that includes 3 members of type of > Coordinate. Where are those pointers?
There are none, I'm saying it would better have pointers rather then values. That way creating vector of default-constructed Triangles would be more efficient then would be with values. --strk; _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@geos.refractions.net http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
