Compile-time reference type objects construction (Was - Re: struct

[Kagamin]

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.