I see a lot of this in the DWT examples:

   new class() Listener { ... }

Didn't even know you could do that till I saw it in DWT.  But I just now ran across an example like this:

   new class Listener { ... }

Is there a difference?  If I had to guess I'd say the first one was creating a no-argument anonymous class template, but I have no idea why you'd want that instead of a regular anonymous class.

--bb

Bill Baxter schrieb:
> I see a lot of this in the DWT examples:
> 
>    new class() Listener { ... }
> 
> Didn't even know you could do that till I saw it in DWT.  But I just now ran across an example like this:
> 
>    new class Listener { ... }
> 
> Is there a difference?  If I had to guess I'd say the first one was creating a no-argument anonymous class template, but I have no idea why you'd want that instead of a regular anonymous class.
> 
> --bb

I think they are the same. The () is the optional arguments list to the ctor call.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:18:23 +0200, Frank Benoit wrote:

> Bill Baxter schrieb:
>> I see a lot of this in the DWT examples:
>> 
>>    new class() Listener { ... }
>> 
>> Didn't even know you could do that till I saw it in DWT.  But I just now ran across an example like this:
>> 
>>    new class Listener { ... }
>> 
>> Is there a difference?  If I had to guess I'd say the first one was creating a no-argument anonymous class template, but I have no idea why you'd want that instead of a regular anonymous class.
>> 
>> --bb
> 
> I think they are the same. The () is the optional arguments list to the
> ctor call.


I thought the '()' were required in D.  I think I was getting errors when I removed the parenthesis.   Otherwise, it would make sense to drop them.

-JJR

Frank Benoit wrote:
> Bill Baxter schrieb:
>> I see a lot of this in the DWT examples:
>>
>>    new class() Listener { ... }
>>
>> Didn't even know you could do that till I saw it in DWT.  But I just now ran across an example like this:
>>
>>    new class Listener { ... }
>>
>> Is there a difference?  If I had to guess I'd say the first one was creating a no-argument anonymous class template, but I have no idea why you'd want that instead of a regular anonymous class.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I think they are the same. The () is the optional arguments list to the ctor call.
> 

That makes sense.  Now that I think about it, there wouldn't be much sense in making a template out of a class that will only ever have one instance.

--bb