Obviously you have limited knowledge/experience with the internals of
object-oriented environments. I wouldn't be too quick to call the object
construction/initialization sequence "dumb" without a detailed analysis.
I would be inclined to say that calling an abstract/virtual method that
must be defined in a subclass from within a constructor is a bad/dangerous
programming practice that will yield unpredictable results, at best.
Douglas Toltzman
Senior Software Engineer, Oak Street Software, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> I've just found out why `d' isn't initialized ...
> it seems to be a dumb design decision in Java
> rather than a bug in the JVM.
>
> Rich.
>
> --
> - Richard Jones. Linux contractor London and SE areas. -
> - Very boring homepage at: http://www.annexia.demon.co.uk/ -
> - You are currently the 1,991,243,100th visitor to this signature. -
> - Original message content Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Jones. -
>
