Re: "call to super must be first statement in constructor"

From: Heiner Kücker (Mail_at_Heiner-Kuecker.de)
Date: 01/30/05

  • Next message: Ryan Stewart: "Re: "call to super must be first statement in constructor"" 
    Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:09:22 +0100

    Paul Chapman wrote
    > Here is an example code fragment:
    >
    > abstract class Outer
    > {
    > protected abstract int getValue();
    > protected final int value;
    > Outer() {
    > value = getValue(); }
    > }
    >
    > class Subclass extends Outer
    > {
    > protected int getValue() {
    > return valueProvider.getValue(); }
    > private final SomeClass valueProvider;
    > Subclass(SomeClass aValueProvider) {
    > valueProvider = aValueProvider;
    > super(); }
    > }
    >
    > Attempting to compile something like this produces the error message in the
    > subject line.
    >
    > Switching the two lines in the Subclass constructor obviously won't work.
    >
    > Using a separate initialize() method to initialize Outer means that
    > Outer.value can't benefit from the security of being final.
    >
    > Is there a way out of this tangle?

    The super() call must be the first statement in a
    constructor of a child class.

    If you no wriites the super() call,
    Java called super() automatically.

    Is this a problem for your program? 

    -- 
Heiner Kuecker
Internet: http://www.heinerkuecker.de  http://www.heiner-kuecker.de
JSP WorkFlow PageFlow Page Flow FlowControl Navigation: http://www.control-and-command.de
Java Expression Formula Parser: http://www.heinerkuecker.de/Expression.html
CnC Template Technology http://www.heinerkuecker.de/Expression.html#templ
Domain Specific Languages http://www.heinerkuecker.de/DomainParser.html
  • Next message: Ryan Stewart: "Re: "call to super must be first statement in constructor""

    Relevant Pages