<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:00 AM Maurizio Cimadamore <<a href="mailto:maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com">maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>I agree that the behavior you propose is not problematic per se.
<p>But, as I mentioned, it brings up can of worms. For instance, now
a superclass constructor could see its field with a non-zero
value. Which could definitively be surprising. After all, there
might be code in the wild assuming that an int field that has not
been assigned yet has value zero - whether writing code like that
is good or bad, it's a separate question. My point here is that
here you cross a fine line between "let's make the language more
expressive" and "this change might have some compatibility
impact".<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Yes, but for this to happen the subclass would have to be in effect intentionally subverting the superclass constructor.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In other words, a problem like you describe can't suddenly just start happening "by accident" just because this new feature exists...</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
</p>
<p>As I said, my general feeling is that it's not worth going there
to "fix escaping this" - because... developers should strive to
write code where this doesn't escape in the first place (and
hopefully the Lint warning you recently added will help with
that).</p></div></blockquote><div>That horse has already left the barn... for example a bunch of JDK classes like HashSet.</div><div> </div><div>-Archie<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Archie L. Cobbs<br></div></div>