On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Dan Smith <daniel.sm...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2020, at 1:32 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >> >>> (Which, in hindsight, might have been a good rule for _all_ constructors, >>> if there was another way to initialize the fields. Surely would have >>> eliminated much verifier complexity.) >>> >> accessing to the identity hashcode or the current class inside a constructor >> is valid (i believe) but those are a corner cases. >> > > Ah, yes. This generalizes to calling methods that safely operate on an > already-initialized superclass (typically instance methods of the superclass). > > If we someday have abstract records or other forms of user-defined > superclasses, it will be quite reasonable to call the superclass's instance > methods from the subclass's constructor. >
So maybe `super` is DA but `this` is DU, just like in the code before the super-constructor call. (I’m abusing the terms DA/DU like Brian is, and you call out, but they are close to correct.)
