On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Gili Tzabari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> What about no-arg constructors? Ideally, we'd allow only default public no-arg constructors, because there's nothing to annotate and adding an explicit constructor is already equivalent to deleting the implicit no-arg constructor, but we may end up being a little more permissive to maintain compatibility w/ 1.0. Bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
