Java要求,如果在构造函数中调用this()或super(),它必须是第一条语句。为什么?

例如:

public class MyClass {
    public MyClass(int x) {}
}

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        int c = a + b;
        super(c);  // COMPILE ERROR
    }
}

Sun编译器说,调用super必须是构造函数中的第一条语句。Eclipse编译器说,构造函数调用必须是构造函数中的第一个语句。

然而,你可以通过稍微重新安排代码来解决这个问题:

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        super(a + b);  // OK
    }
}

下面是另一个例子:

public class MyClass {
    public MyClass(List list) {}
}

public class MySubClassA extends MyClass {
    public MySubClassA(Object item) {
        // Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
        List list = new ArrayList();
        list.add(item);
        super(list);  // COMPILE ERROR
    }
}

public class MySubClassB extends MyClass {
    public MySubClassB(Object item) {
        // Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
        super(Arrays.asList(new Object[] { item }));  // OK
    }
}

因此,它不会阻止您在调用super()之前执行逻辑。它只是阻止您执行无法放入单个表达式中的逻辑。

调用this()也有类似的规则。编译器说,调用this必须是构造函数中的第一条语句。

为什么编译器有这些限制?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?


当前回答

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);
        }
}

其他回答

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。

这是因为你的构造函数依赖于其他构造函数。要使你的构造函数正常工作,其他构造函数正常工作是必要的,这是依赖的。这就是为什么有必要首先检查由this()或super()在构造函数中调用的依赖构造函数。如果由this()或super()调用的其他构造函数有问题,那么什么点执行其他语句,因为如果被调用的构造函数失败,所有的构造函数都会失败。

在调用子对象的构造函数之前,可以使用匿名初始化块初始化子对象中的字段。这个例子将演示:

public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Child();
    }
}

class Parent {
    public Parent() {
        System.out.println("In parent");
    }
}

class Child extends Parent {

    {
        System.out.println("In initializer");
    }

    public Child() {
        super();
        System.out.println("In child");
    }
}

这将输出:

在父 在初始化 在儿童

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。

我找到了一个变通办法。

这将不会编译:

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        int c = a + b;
        super(c);  // COMPILE ERROR
        doSomething(c);
        doSomething2(a);
        doSomething3(b);
    }
}

这是可行的:

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        this(a + b);
        doSomething2(a);
        doSomething3(b);
    }

    private MySubClass(int c) {
        super(c);
        doSomething(c);
    }
}