Declaring return type in constructor does not cause compilation error

Question

I wrote Java code and, absent-mindedly, typed at some point public void BaseStation() as a constructor for the BaseStation class. To my surprise, this did not cause an error during compilation, and the program was launched. Why is this? Is there a reason someone has a return type for the constructor?

Answer 1

Setting the return type makes this method, not a constructor. You may have a method with the same name as the class (although this is against the conventions and is poorly read)

Answer 2

No, the compiler just thinks that you wrote a method called BasedStation and do not interpret it as a constructor.

Answer 3

This is a type of overload in Java. You can also overload by changing the method parameters.