Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I usually make a base class abstract to give the signal this is a base class – you cannot instantiate me! even if there are no abstract methods in it.
Furthermore, I always make the base class constructor protected, although there’s no real functional need to do that – I just want to make another point that this is a base class – you cannot instantiate me!
Am I jumping through hoops in doing that? What do you do?
It seems a reasonable thing to do, yes. There’ll be no functional difference between the constructor being public or being protected, but making it protected gives a clearer indication of the intended use.