Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> I don't agree with you. If so, then why we have the following syntax allowed:
>
> class Foo
> {
> int i = 42;
> }
It fits well into .init feature. If you want to split constructor, some subtle
bugs can arise. For example one programmer stumbled into such bug in Java: base
class constructor was called, it called virtual method, overriden in derived
class, this method assigned an object to a field, then base class constructor
returned and derived field initializers were called and they assigned null to
that field, so object ended up with null in the field.
