Alright. If i use a secondary constructor i have t...

# announcements

[herlevsen]

Alright. If i use a secondary constructor i have to provide defaults for the non-nullable fields, which feels wrong to me. And the init block is just extra boilerplate, that i would rather not type. Would be cool if there was some way to explicitly call the setter from the primary constructor

[karelpeeters]

Are you sure you have to provide defaults? Did you accidentally keep an empty primary constructor ()?

[herlevsen]

Absolutely sure. Also i will be unable to use val, since it has to initialized from the primary constructor

[herlevsen]

So i guess the init block is the best way

[karelpeeters]

Let me try that, I'm not convinced.

[herlevsen]

Even if I can, I will still have to type “this.email = email”, so it requires the same boilerplate as the init block (but wouldn’t assign and reassign)

[herlevsen]

But it seems you are right that i don’t need defaults with the secondary constructor, my bad

[karelpeeters]

Sure, you'll still nice a bit of boilerplate.

[herlevsen]

Right. Another odd thing is that IntelliJ suggests that i convert the secondary constructor to a primary, even though they apparently have different semantics. But thanks for your time @karelpeeters, I appreciate it 🙂

[karelpeeters]

That's a bug then, I'd report it on YouTrack. Good luck!