Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > Actually, not all classes have to have a constructor. Look > at a class > > generated by: > > ... > > C# will also have this sorta thingy in 2.0. > > No, it wont. > > It will have syntactic sugar for making it explicit that the class can > not be instantiated, by making the constructor private (the pattern > used today)
Why do assume a particular implementation? Marking a class sealed and abstract seems like a perfectly sensible way to compile "static class". Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
