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.