If you want, you can write
type AA
aa
bb
function AA()
this = new()
this.aa = 1
this.bb = 2
this
end
end
But that seems like a lot more typing and constructing incomplete objects
gratuitously is a bad idea, so I wouldn't recommend it.
> On May 10, 2014, at 12:12 AM, "Steven G. Johnson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Friday, May 9, 2014 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, K leo wrote:
>> I meant having the inner constructor but having no need to write the new
>> statement. Isn't the purpose of the new statement implied by the
>> constructor already?
>
> No, because the variables "aa" and "bb" in your constructor are simply local
> variables of your constructor function, and don't necessarily have anything
> to do with the fields of the object being constructed. For example, it
> would be perfectly valid to do:
>
> type AA
> aa
> bb
>
> function AA()
> aa=1
> bb=2
> new(bb,aa)
> end
> end
>
> I think you're getting confused by comparison to traditional OO languages
> where methods are "owned" by the type and fields of the type are
> automatically local variables of the type's methods. That's not the case in
> Julia.
