From b9057cfc8c8de493f8ac63fb21ea4f829c5e4880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Kofod Mogensen Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:49:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] fix constructors.rst --- doc/manual/constructors.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/manual/constructors.rst b/doc/manual/constructors.rst index 381767e4769eb..9207a19c42a7b 100644 --- a/doc/manual/constructors.rst +++ b/doc/manual/constructors.rst @@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ to another, you should probably define a ``convert`` method instead. On the other hand, if your constructor does not represent a lossless conversion, or doesn't represent "conversion" at all, it is better to leave it as a constructor rather than a ``convert`` method. For -example, the ``Array{Int}`` constructor creates a zero-dimensional +example, the ``Array{Int}()`` constructor creates a zero-dimensional ``Array`` of the type ``Int``, but is not really a "conversion" from ``Int`` to an ``Array``.