declaring a return type on a constructor doesn't cause a compilation error

Question

I was writing code in Java and, absent-minded, i typed at some point public void BaseStation() as the constructor to a BaseStation class. To my surprise, this did not cause a compile-time error and the program got to run. Why is that? Is there any reason for someone to have a return type to a constructor?

Answer 1

Specifying a return type makes this a method, rather than a constructor. You can have a method with the same name as the class (though this conflicts the conventions and is bad for readability)