Is this really intended??

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Sunday, 11 October 2020 at 00:34:57 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> The first assignment to a member inside a constructor is 
> considered initialization so that you can use constructors to 
> initialize immutable members:

This isn't what's weird here though, the bizarre thing is it lets 
you call the method on the "uninitialized" member, then proceed 
to initialize it afterward.

The rest of it is justified, but that particular aspect is 
bizarre and I can't justify that...