Talk:Constructor overloading

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]