D's constructor call hierarchy (Was: Re: [Bug 91] Inherited classes require base class to have a default constructor.)

[Serg Kovrov]

* Serg Kovrov:
> 2. Forcing to call base constructors. I just don't get it. When I define 
> a constructor in subclass, I do it to overload functionality of base 
> classes. Isn't it obvious? But when I *forced* to call super 
> constructors, there is no sense in them at all. I some case I could have 
> some init() method to overload, but in some case i do not see a sane way 
> to fix it. My opinion: It is a design flaw, to force workarounds instead 
> of solutions.

In my previous post i misused term 'overload', should read 'override' 
instead.

-- 
serg.