https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9636
--- Comment #6 from [email protected] --- (In reply to monarchdodra from comment #5) > The original request was the ability to write "myNullable = null". I said > this should be rejected, because "t = null" could actually be a "non-null > operation". > > I suggested instead using a "null-token" as a "workaround", but, as > JakobOvrum states, "why all this?" > > Is there something we actually *get* from this, or is it only sugar? If it's > only sugar, i suggest we close. How do we close an enhancement? Won't Fix? > Invalid? Do you mean I should write code like this? void foo(Nullable!(immutable int[4]) items = Nullable!(immutable int[4]).init) {} I find it not acceptable and I'd like some shorter way to write it. --
