On Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 10:13:47 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 06:47:25 UTC, Ali Çehreli
wrote:
[...]
This is what I would believe __IS__ and __SHOULD__ be the
default behavior too, because that's how it generally is in
other languages.
It doesn't make much sense to call a super constructer after
and it's very rare cases that you need too.
The only time you really call super constructors after is if
the parameters are different.
Ex.
class Foo
{
int baz;
int boo;
this() { ... }
this(int baz, int boo) { ... }
}
class Bar : Foo
{
this()
{
int baz =getBazFromSomewhere();
int boo = getBooFromSomewhere();
super(baz, boo);
}
}
In that case it makes sense to call super() after, but you
rarely end up in cases like that and thus you should generally
be able to omit the call.
If super() is ever called explicit after (if no call to a super
constructor has been done.) then I can only imagine A LOT of
code will break, because it's a general concept and known
behavior from most languages that base/super constructors are
called before.
I think during many late night debugging, I had TWO bugs and
confused super call-order and wrote that comment.
What I think happened was, super() was called correctly, but, the
chain of classes was calling this()/super() constructors and
DIDN'T call this(var, var)/super(var,var) constructors that I
needed.
So AFAIK, I'd call this a closed problem / mistaken
understanding. Thanks for your prompt replies and help. Sorry if
I wasted your time.
