It is not an error to have a constructor with the same name as the class #5940
Comments
|
There is no ambiguity here: class C { But we reject this because we don't want to have multiple namespaces. I think this situation is analogous. |
|
So the basic issue here is a desire to keep the namespace model as simple as possible. This is admirable. One would like to say that there is a single namespace for the class, with instance and static members and constructors in it. However, this is not actually true. Given a constructor C.foo, foo is not in scope in any sense: one cannot write new foo() for example (and one cannot write just foo in any other context inside the class either). I feel this is just too complex. |
|
Removed this from the Later milestone. |
|
Removed Oldschool-Milestone-Later label. |
peter-ahe-google
added
Type-Defect
area-language
kevmoo
added
P2
|
This would be a breaking change at this point, so it's not likely to happen. |
munificent
added
the
closed-not-planned
The specification (as of October 8, 2012) says:
"A constructor name always begins with the name of its immediately enclosing class, and may optionally be followed by a dot and an identifier id. It is a compile-time error if id is the name of a member declared in the immediately enclosing class. It is a compile-time error if the name of a constructor is not a constructor name."
This means that this is not an error:
class C {
C.C();
}
main() {
print(new C.C());
}
I think this should be an error.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: