OK, makes sense. A bit strange that it took out the default constructor though..
Hm, that does seem like a bug. You should file an issue. On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:00:13 PM UTC-5, Fil Mackay wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Squire > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, Julia does not actually allow definitions of default >> values in that way. What you did do was define a local variable b with a >> value of zero, that I believe could be used in inner constructors of Test. > > > OK, makes sense. A bit strange that it took out the default constructor > though.. > >
