Re: Statements before super()
Lew wrote:
Believe us, all those examples you contrive can be handled with
existing Java semantics. Since by definition what you put in there
cannot rely on the instance being constructed, it must be available
through a static method call.
Or if not, you can make a factory to create the instance with
whatever you need. A typical pattern is to use a builder in the
factory method that starts with a no-arg constructor, probably
'private', and the setting of necessary properties to create a viable
state.
None of this is about what Java cannot do, since it can, but about
how you wish it would do it, which is tough noogies for you.
The part of it I would find annoying (if I thought it existed) would be if
some sorts of initialization could only be done via a factory. A large part
of designing a class is determining what interface it shows to client code.
If the result includes a constructor rather than a factory, changes to the
class's implementation shouldn't force a reversal of that decision.