Discuss: disallow visibility specifiers in constructor functions

[federicobond]

I was doing some experiments with visibility specifiers and noticed that constructor functions can be defined as internal. This causes the contract to be marked as abstract, but child contracts can call the super constructor without problems.

Are there any real world use cases of this? Is it something we would like to support?

[axic]

Prior reading #979 😉

[axic]

Example code:

contract A {
  uint public a;

  function A(uint _a) internal {
    a = _a;
  }
}

contract B is A(1) {
  function B() {}
}

[axic]

@federicobond the reason is explained in #3132. Is there any need to keep this issue?

[federicobond]

No need. We can close it.

[Tectract]

I'm not sure I understand the full implications of public versus internal constructor functions, but I know I'm getting a compiler warning on the "standard" erc20 token contract in the latest solc compiler version. Is it safe to just make the constructor as public?