Rexx no-args ctor shared - Question for Mike

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rexx no-args ctor shared - Question for Mike

rvjansen
Hi Mike,

hope you are well - I have a question.

The Rexx() constructor is defined as shared, which means package private. Do you remember why?

I am experimenting with using the Rexx class in a Kotlin program, and the latter balked at the empty constructor. I am trying to find out if I can influence the type inference that Kotlin does, that is why. 

I changed it temporarily to not being ‘shared’ and that works, so I wondered if that can safely be included in 3.07 - at least if you don’t mind changing this rather fundamental concept.

best regards,

René.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rexx no-args ctor shared - Question for Mike

Mike Cowlishaw
 
hope you are well - I have a question. 
 All well here :-).

 
The Rexx() constructor is defined as shared, which means package private. Do you remember why? 
 
I suspect it was because I couldn't see a use for the empty constructor if you don't have access to the shared/private values. 

I am experimenting with using the Rexx class in a Kotlin program, and the latter balked at the empty constructor. I am trying to find out if I can influence the type inference that Kotlin does, that is why. 

I changed it temporarily to not being ‘shared’ and that works, so I wondered if that can safely be included in 3.07 - at least if you don’t mind changing this rather fundamental concept. 
 
Again, not sure how it would be useful, but if it works, sounds OK.  Documentation might be rather tricky!
 
Mike 

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/