tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638372.post109985447163466042..comments2023-10-10T05:22:56.347-05:00Comments on binkley's BLOG: Why chaining constructors is goodBrian Oxleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06617364377560752378noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638372.post-1100028165034741402004-11-09T13:22:00.000-06:002004-11-09T13:22:00.000-06:00Steve, I agree with Cedric's goal of clarity, but ...Steve, I agree with Cedric's goal of clarity, but I commented on his article that I can achieve clarity by placing the single privileged constructor first and all the others following (reverse of the order presented in my example). Giving the constructor a special name like "init" doesn't seem particularly clarifying to me, but I recognize that this point is one more of taste than a technical one.Brian Oxleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06617364377560752378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638372.post-1099932760091216962004-11-08T10:52:00.000-06:002004-11-08T10:52:00.000-06:00My only objection to this style, which I explained...My only objection to this style, which I explained in my weblog, is that if I browse your code, it's harder for me to find what your canonical constructor is, whereas a constant name such as init() makes it obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com