<@U3HLSKE8L> You are right in that any secondary c...

# getting-started

[damian]

@adam-mcneilly You are right in that any secondary constructor must eventually delegate to the first. Because of that, you can't delegate directly to a superclass constructor. It probably makes the most sense to eliminate the primary constructor entirely in this case (you're allowed to have only secondary constructors). Then it's just a java-style situation where you have some unrelated constructors.