WARN on implicit super?

[Chris Katko]

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.