Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
C# discussion: Redundant class names?
Message
 
 
General information
Forum:
ASP.NET
Category:
Coding, syntax and commands
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01334856
Message ID:
01334887
Views:
17
>>>>This is the first in what I think will be a series of discussions relating to C#. I am immersed in learning it and know others are as well. Or already have, or are thinking about it. Generics and interfaces are a couple of topics I have in mind after I get a question that has been bugging me for a while out of my system. The answer is probably blindingly obvious to someone who already knows C#.
>>>>
>>>>Here is my question. When you instantiate an object, you do it like this:
>>>>
>>>>Circle cir = New Circle();
>>>>
>>>>Why does the class name occur twice? Why isn't the Circle() on the right sufficient to define the type of object being created?
>>>>
>>>>i.e. Why isn't it? ---
>>>>
>>>>cir = New Circle();
>>>
>>>Just a language design choice. If allowed it would be the equivalent of ' var cir = new Circle(); '
>>>Regards,
>>>Viv
>>
>>But why would they make such a design choice? It truly seems redundant to me, just extra typing.
>>
>>Tautology tt = New Tautology();
>
>Maybe the syntax was just for consistency. In some cases you might want to treat the object as a parent class or asan interface that it implements. e.g:
>
>ParentClass p = new ChildClass();

I don't understand that at all -- instantiating a parent object based on a derived child class?
Previous
Next
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform