class C
{
    int y,z;

    C()
    {
        y=10;
    }

    C(int x)
    {
        C();
        z=x+y;
        System.out.println(z);
    }
}

class A
{
    public static void main(String a[])
    {
        new C(10);
    }
}

请看例子，如果我们调用构造函数C(int x)，那么z的值取决于y，如果我们不在第一行调用C()，那么这将是z的问题，z将无法得到正确的值。

这是官方回放: 从历史上看，this()或super()在构造函数中必须位于第一个。这 限制从来不受欢迎，被认为是武断的。有一个 一些微妙的原因，包括验证调用特殊， 这导致了这种限制。这些年来，我们已经解决了 这些都是虚拟机级别的，直到它变得实用 考虑取消这一限制，不只是对记录，而是对所有人 构造函数。

你能给出一个代码例子，如果编译器没有这个限制，就会发生不好的事情吗?

class Good {
    int essential1;
    int essential2;

    Good(int n) {
        if (n > 100)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("n is too large!");
        essential1 = 1 / n;
        essential2 = n + 2;
    }
}

class Bad extends Good {
    Bad(int n) {
        try {
            super(n);
        } catch (Exception e) {
            // Exception is ignored
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Bad b = new Bad(0);
//        b = new Bad(101);
        System.out.println(b.essential1 + b.essential2);
    }
}

An exception during construction almost always indicates that the object being constructed could not be properly initialized, now is in a bad state, unusable, and must be garbage collected. However, a constructor of a subclass has got the ability to ignore an exception occurred in one of its superclasses and to return a partially initialized object. In the above example, if the argument given to new Bad() is either 0 or greater than 100, then neither essential1 nor essential2 are properly initialized.

你可能会说忽略异常总是一个坏主意。好的，这里还有一个例子:

class Bad extends Good {
    Bad(int n) {
        for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
            super(i);
    }
}

很有趣，不是吗?在这个例子中我们创建了多少个对象?一个?两个?或者什么都没有……

允许在构造函数中间调用super()或this()将打开一个令人讨厌的构造函数的潘多拉盒子。

另一方面，我理解在调用super()或this()之前经常需要包含一些静态部分。这可能是任何不依赖于此引用的代码(实际上，它已经存在于构造函数的最开始，但在super()或This()返回之前不能有序使用)，并且需要进行这样的调用。此外，像在任何方法中一样，在调用super()或this()之前创建的一些局部变量可能会在调用super()或this()之后被需要。

在这种情况下，你有以下机会:

Use the pattern presented at this answer, which allows to circumvent the restriction. Wait for the Java team to allow pre-super() and pre-this() code. It may be done by imposing a restriction on where super() or this() may occur in a constructor. Actually, even today's compiler is able to distinguish good and bad (or potentially bad) cases with the degree enough to securely allow static code addition at the beginning of a constructor. Indeed, assume that super() and this() return this reference and, in turn, your constructor has

return this;

最后。以及编译器拒绝代码

public int get() {
    int x;
    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        x = i;
    return x;
}

public int get(int y) {
    int x;
    if (y > 0)
        x = y;
    return x;
}

public int get(boolean b) {
    int x;
    try {
        x = 1;
    } catch (Exception e) {
    }
    return x;
}

with the error "variable x might not have been initialized", it could do so on this variable, making its checks on it just like on any other local variable. The only difference is this cannot be assigned by any means other than super() or this() call (and, as usual, if there is no such call at a constructor, super() is implicitly inserted by compiler in the beginning) and might not be assigned twice. In case of any doubt (like in the first get(), where x is actually always assigned), the compiler could return an error. That would be better than simply return error on any constructor where there is something except a comment before super() or this().

我完全同意，限制太严格了。使用静态辅助方法(如Tom Hawtin - tackline所建议的)或将所有“pre-super()计算”推入参数中的单个表达式并不总是可行的，例如:

class Sup {
    public Sup(final int x_) { 
        //cheap constructor 
    }
    public Sup(final Sup sup_) { 
        //expensive copy constructor 
    }
}

class Sub extends Sup {
    private int x;
    public Sub(final Sub aSub) {
        /* for aSub with aSub.x == 0, 
         * the expensive copy constructor is unnecessary:
         */

         /* if (aSub.x == 0) { 
          *    super(0);
          * } else {
          *    super(aSub);
          * } 
          * above gives error since if-construct before super() is not allowed.
          */

        /* super((aSub.x == 0) ? 0 : aSub); 
         * above gives error since the ?-operator's type is Object
         */

        super(aSub); // much slower :(  

        // further initialization of aSub
    }
}

正如Carson Myers所建议的那样，使用“尚未构造的对象”异常会有所帮助，但是在每个对象构造期间检查这个异常会减慢执行速度。我希望Java编译器能够更好地区分(而不是不合理地禁止if语句，但允许在形参中使用?-操作符)，即使这会使语言规范复杂化。

在构造子对象之前，必须先创建父对象。 如你所知，当你这样写类时:

public MyClass {
        public MyClass(String someArg) {
                System.out.println(someArg);
        }
}

它转向下一个(extend和super只是被隐藏了):

public MyClass extends Object{
        public MyClass(String someArg) {
                super();
                System.out.println(someArg);
        }
}

First we create an Object and then extend this object to MyClass. We can not create MyClass before the Object. The simple rule is that parent's constructor has to be called before child constructor. But we know that classes can have more that one constructor. Java allow us to choose a constructor which will be called (either it will be super() or super(yourArgs...)). So, when you write super(yourArgs...) you redefine constructor which will be called to create a parent object. You can't execute other methods before super() because the object doesn't exist yet (but after super() an object will be created and you will be able to do anything you want).

So why then we cannot execute this() after any method? As you know this() is the constructor of the current class. Also we can have different number of constructors in our class and call them like this() or this(yourArgs...). As I said every constructor has hidden method super(). When we write our custom super(yourArgs...) we remove super() with super(yourArgs...). Also when we define this() or this(yourArgs...) we also remove our super() in current constructor because if super() were with this() in the same method, it would create more then one parent object. That is why the same rules imposed for this() method. It just retransmits parent object creation to another child constructor and that constructor calls super() constructor for parent creation. So, the code will be like this in fact:

public MyClass extends Object{
        public MyClass(int a) {
                super();
                System.out.println(a);
        }
        public MyClass(int a, int b) {
                this(a);
                System.out.println(b);
        }
}

正如其他人所说，你可以这样执行代码:

this(a+b);

你也可以像这样执行代码:

public MyClass(int a, SomeObject someObject) {
    this(someObject.add(a+5));
}

但是你不能像这样执行代码，因为你的方法还不存在:

public MyClass extends Object{
    public MyClass(int a) {

    }
    public MyClass(int a, int b) {
        this(add(a, b));
    }
    public int add(int a, int b){
        return a+b;
    }
}

此外，在this()方法链中必须有super()构造函数。你不能像这样创建一个对象:

public MyClass{
        public MyClass(int a) {
                this(a, 5);
        }
        public MyClass(int a, int b) {
                this(a);
        }
}

Java为什么这样做的问题已经有了答案，但由于我无意中发现了这个问题，希望找到一个更好的单行程序的替代品，因此在此分享我的解决方法:

public class SomethingComplicated extends SomethingComplicatedParent {

    private interface Lambda<T> {
        public T run();
    }

    public SomethingComplicated(Settings settings) {
        super(((Lambda<Settings>) () -> {

            // My modification code,
            settings.setting1 = settings.setting2;
            return settings;
        }).run());
    }
}

调用静态函数应该执行得更好，但如果我坚持将代码“置于”构造函数内部，或者如果我必须更改多个参数，并且发现定义许多静态方法不利于可读性，我会使用这种方法。