Re: [RFC] Default constructors

> On 18 Nov 2014, at 12:47, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa < > ivan.enderlin@hoa-project.net> wrote: > >> Hello :-), >> >> Is it not simpler to create a super-object whom all objects are children >> of? Something similar to the Java Object? > yeah, this was also a suggested alternative when discussing this problem > previously(see the link in my previous mail). I'd certainly like it if everything descended from some class (Object? StdClass?), but I don't like the idea of an empty construct. As Anthony pointed out last time, you can't do inheritance and simultaneously treat the parent class as a black box. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/