On 5/23/17, 3:22 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >We seem to have a number of empty constructors in the SDK. Is there any >reason for this as? Performance wise there’s going to be a cost with this. AFAICT the compiler will auto-generate an empty constructor for you, so I don't think there will be an effective cost. Do folks think this is important to this release? I personally don't mind having empty constructors. > >On the other hand we also have a number of constructors that are not >light weight. AS doesn’t JIT code in constructors so best practice is to >move the code to a another method and call it from the constructor. Any >reason this isn’t being done? I don't want to take the time to go look right now. What are some examples? Thanks, -Alex
