On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:21 PM, Tagir Valeev <amae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think so. A compact constructor (or require initializer, as you > propose) could be not the only constructor. An instance initializer is > convenient because it's added to every constructor, regardless of whether > it's compact or not. So the new thing doesn't supersede the instance > initializer and I see no good reason to explicitly disable it.
+1 on that. That horse is out of the barn. As I just said, though, we don’t want to give it new jobs, even though we could choose to do so.
