Re: New feature: sequential constructors
> No, that's why I am asking. Why is it an anti-pattern to call a known
> super constructor?
Guess I'd send you to my comments in the earlier thread as I think I
exhausted my ability to dismantle (advisory a..k.a. "pretty please")
Call Super there. Or "?call super antipattern".
Of course, most every antipattern began as a brand name for a common
approach, then once it graduated to a non-judgmental recommendation
the backlash began. The cynic in me knows that some patterns are
declared anti- so they can make developers feel cool about their code
even if it works no more efficiently, is no better documented, and is
only negligibly more manageable than "uncool" stuff. Nevertheless I
find the arguments against Call Super compelling even in a closed
environment where you control your own API. YMMV...
-- S.
Thread (11 messages)