Yes, if no inner constructor is provided, the default constructor is based on fields. So
type AA aa::Int bb::Float64 end is valid (and common). On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:32 PM, cnbiz850 <[email protected]> wrote: > As in the following example, new(aa,bb) is very redundant from coding > point of view. Since all fields are already declared and listed in the > type definition, is it possible not to list them again with the "new" > statement? The new statement can be very troublesome when the type has > many fields. > > ========= > type AA > aa > bb > > function AA() > aa=1 > bb=2 > new(aa,bb) > end > end >
