Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
It is intentional and consistent with a lot of typegen code. The reason is that
this is
a `partial` class, and the developer might be adding other code (for example a
custom
constructor) to *their* half of the class (in a different) file. Adding a
bespoke
constructor should not stop the system working, so adding a *defined*
parameterless
constructor helps.
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 24 Feb 2010 at 11:10
It makes sense to ensure that the constructor is consistent from the initial
version. I
can move to a static method for the creation as easily. thx.
Original comment by jcustenb...@gmail.com
on 24 Feb 2010 at 12:14
Sounds like no action required then?
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 24 Feb 2010 at 1:15
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jcustenb...@gmail.com
on 24 Feb 2010 at 12:19