On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> wrote: > I had a syntactic restriction on `super` for two reasons, neither one > related to the kind of invariant you're thinking of: (1) if the > super() call isn't there, I wanted to call it implicitly, for > convenience and correctness-by-default; and, (2) until you call the > base class @@new, there is no `this` value. But the syntactic > restriction isn't sufficient for purpose #2, and besides none of us > like it, so I will try to find another way. :)
Just for the record, Java maintains a similar syntactic/semantic invariant on the use of `super`, so it can certainly be made to work. On the other hand, it's also entirely true that nobody likes it very much in Java, although they live can live with it (and there are workarounds, like making one of the arguments a call to a static method to do important work before the superclass constructor is invoked). --scott _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
