I believe if there is *any* code in a type block other than field declarations, the type will not have any inner constructors. Not really a bug, but maybe somewhat confusing.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jake Bolewski <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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]>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.. >> >>
