Re: Forcing sub-classes to implement Constructor

Jeff Kesselman wrote:
> Victor Grazi wrote:
>> No I said "only a non-default constructor"
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From:  Randall R Schulz <[email protected]>
>> Subj:  Re: [ADVANCED-JAVA] Forcing sub-classes to implement Constructor
>> Date:  Thu Aug 9, 2007 7:10 pm
>> Size:  1K
>> To:  [email protected]
>>
>> On Thursday 09 August 2007 15:21, Victor Grazi wrote:
>>
>>> No but if you have only a non default constructor then subclasses are
>>> forced to implement it.
>>>
> Actually I don't think thats true.
>
> I *think* this is legal... though i haven't checked:
So I goofed obviously, the should have been...

public class Foo {
  public Foo(String str){

 }
}

public class Bar extends Foo {
   public Bar() {
      super("dummy");
  }
}

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com