public class A
{
public A ()
{
// here I would like to call the second version of _ctor, how to
accomplish this ?
}

public A (int a, int b, int c)
{
// some code
}
}

Thanks for any advice,
Paul

Paul.

use this to reference current instance.

E.g.

public A() : this(1,2,3) {
....
}

HTH
Alex

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> public class A
> {
> public A ()
> {
> // here I would like to call the second version of _ctor, how to
> accomplish this ?
> }
>
> public A (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> // some code
> }
> }
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> Paul
>
>

You cannot. You will have to move the code in the second constructor into a
function, called 'Initialize' for example, and then invoke that function
from both constructors.

You can, however, invoke inherited contructors in the constructor signature
using the base keyword, eg:

public A (int param1, string param2) : base(param1, param2)
{
...
}

--
John Wood
EMail: first name, dot, last name, at priorganize.com

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> public class A
> {
> public A ()
> {
> // here I would like to call the second version of _ctor, how to
> accomplish this ?
> }
>
> public A (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> // some code
> }
> }
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> Paul
>
>

do it like this:
public A() : this(1, 2, 3)
{
// other constructor will be called before anything
// happens in this one.
}

Chris

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> public class A
> {
> public A ()
> {
> // here I would like to call the second version of _ctor, how to
> accomplish this ?
> }
>
> public A (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> // some code
> }
> }
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> Paul
>
>

Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> public class A
> {
> public A ()
> {
> // here I would like to call the second version of _ctor, how to
> accomplish this ?
> }
>
> public A (int a, int b, int c)
> {
> // some code
> }
> }

See http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/constructors.html

--
Jon Skeet - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

John Wood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> You cannot. You will have to move the code in the second constructor into a
> function, called 'Initialize' for example, and then invoke that function
> from both constructors.

Yes you can - just as your code below, but using "this" instead of
"base".

> You can, however, invoke inherited contructors in the constructor signature
> using the base keyword, eg:
>
> public A (int param1, string param2) : base(param1, param2)
> {
> ...
> }

Point of pedantry: constructors aren't inherited. That invokes the base
constructor.

--
Jon Skeet - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

> Yes you can - just as your code below, but using "this" instead of
> "base".
Yeah true you can (I admit I forgot), but I rarely use that because you have
little control over when the referenced constructor is called (it always
runs before the constructor body).

John Wood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Yes you can - just as your code below, but using "this" instead of
> > "base".
> Yeah true you can (I admit I forgot), but I rarely use that because you have
> little control over when the referenced constructor is called (it always
> runs before the constructor body).

That doesn't mean it's not useful though. I use it all the time when
providing constructs which effectively default various values - each
constructor calls a version with more parameters, either directly going
to the "full" one or going in stages. I believe this is fairly common.

--
Jon Skeet - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

I still don't get why they didn't add optional parameters in C#...
Constructor overloads can get pretty messy, given all the permutations you
have to provide.

--
John Wood
EMail: first name, dot, last name, at priorganize.com
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> John Wood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > Yes you can - just as your code below, but using "this" instead of
> > > "base".
> > Yeah true you can (I admit I forgot), but I rarely use that because you
have
> > little control over when the referenced constructor is called (it always
> > runs before the constructor body).
>
> That doesn't mean it's not useful though. I use it all the time when
> providing constructs which effectively default various values - each
> constructor calls a version with more parameters, either directly going
> to the "full" one or going in stages. I believe this is fairly common.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Incidentally, I typically use the essence pattern for constructing complex
objects now.. saves having all those overloads cluttering the class.

--
John Wood
EMail: first name, dot, last name, at priorganize.com

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> John Wood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > Yes you can - just as your code below, but using "this" instead of
> > > "base".
> > Yeah true you can (I admit I forgot), but I rarely use that because you
have
> > little control over when the referenced constructor is called (it always
> > runs before the constructor body).
>
> That doesn't mean it's not useful though. I use it all the time when
> providing constructs which effectively default various values - each
> constructor calls a version with more parameters, either directly going
> to the "full" one or going in stages. I believe this is fairly common.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too