Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 12/19/07 02:39

"Toby A Inkster" <usenet200707@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73ijn4-mvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>> The best answer came from Jerry when he said it was for purely academic
>> reasons - to keep tight with the OOP design principles.
>
> How about this... what happens when one day you decide that your
> constructor should do something over and above what the reset function
> does?

I've been programming since the 1970's.
In my experience, that situation is as rare as a duck that can't swim.

Your point is valid - there's a design consideration that can add a measure
of reusability.
It's like how you *should* use high-octane gas, even though the one a few
points lower works fine.
The difference is negligible - and the shortcut is acceptable.

[Back to original message]