Nope. This is one of the nice things about the design.
> On Jan 11, 2014, at 8:16 PM, John Myles White <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’ve noticed that a lot of people to use different field names when writing > inner constructors, so that you see code like: > > type Foo > a::Int > > function Foo(alpha::Int) > magic(alpha) > new(alpha) > end > end > > Would this ever be necessary to avoid confusion about names? I’ve started > reusing the exact field name and it seems to work fine. Am I going to run > into a subtle bug? > > — John >
