Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- From: Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:43:47 GMT
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:05:49 +0100, "Ross Bamford"
<rosco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted :
>Otherwise, 'final' with the private constructor would be a better bet I
>think.
Constructors cannot be overridden even when you use the same name and
signature in a subclass. So in that sense all constructors are final
anyway..
All private methods are automatically final.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- From: Ross Bamford
- Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- From: Owen Jacobson
- Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- References:
- A truly uninstantiable class?
- From: Ian Pilcher
- Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- From: Ross Bamford
- A truly uninstantiable class?
- Prev by Date: Re: JWS/JOGL test..
- Next by Date: Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- Previous by thread: Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- Next by thread: Re: A truly uninstantiable class?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|