Re: Separate interface and implemenation problem..

From:

Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:40:28 -0700

Message-ID:

<3b6dnb7pFaizvrXXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink.com>

MRe wrote:

Geez Lew, chill out.. I'm not complaining, just questions. About the
private interface: curiosity about the language, to learn; how do I
search for the reason something doesn't exist? About the new operator:
it was mainly rhetorical as a little cover-up of my stupidity of
forgetting to write it in. I could have said, "why is it my brain
always forget to write that?"---I'm sorry I didn't.

The need for "new" in Java is partly a consequence of the decision to
allow the use of the same identifier as the class name and a method name
in the same class:

public class Silly {
   public void Silly(){
     System.out.println("Silly method");
   }
   public Silly(){
     System.out.println("Silly constructor");
   }
}

"new" distinguishes a constructor call from a call to the Silly method.
Personally, I think it would have been better not to allow a method with
the same name as its class. In practice, it tends to be the result of a
typo rather than deliberate.

Patricia