Talk:Constructor overloading

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Do we really need such an article, in the light of method overloading and constructors? I see no point in recombing different OO aspects into own articles, specially as constructor overloading is only available in some OO languages and does not introduce specific problems. --Schoelle 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really necessary I agree, this would be worthwhile while there remains little text in Method overloading. I guess we need to rename Constructor overloading to simply 'Overloading' right? and I wonder what impact this has on links into the page in existence. Any offers? -- 3Easy 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's useful content and I agree with 3Easy it should be merged & renamed
VoltageX 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]