Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!tetrauk!rick From: rick@tetrauk.UUCP (Rick Jones) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Multiple creation routines. Message-ID: <1060@tetrauk.UUCP> Date: 19 Dec 90 09:27:07 GMT References: <4106@tantalum.UUCP> <1045@tetrauk.UUCP> <4212@tantalum.UUCP> <1051@tetrauk.UUCP> <462@eiffel.UUCP> <1057@tetrauk.UUCP> Reply-To: rick@tetrauk.UUCP (Rick Jones) Organization: Tetra Ltd., Maidenhead, UK Lines: 21 In article kim@helios.enea.se (Kim Walden) writes: | |Quoting from Bertrand's proposed change: | |>> For a class which has no creation procedure (meaning that the default |>> initializations are sufficient to ensure the invariant), the syntax |>> becomes simply |>> x!! | |So a default creation call is never valid when the creation clause of the |corresponding class is non-empty. The compiler will force the user to |specify one of the listed creation routines (with proper arguments, if any). Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for pointing it out - I obviously didn't read Bertrand's article carefully enough! -- Rick Jones Tetra Ltd. Maidenhead, Was it something important? Maybe not Berks, UK What was it you wanted? Tell me again I forgot rick@tetrauk.uucp -- Bob Dylan