https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9636
--- Comment #7 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? Because of the design mistake in Nullable that it does not alias itself to T if T is already a nullable type, Nullable's 'null' and the wrapped type's 'null' are two different things, and it's necessary to make a distinction. One solution is to use Nullable!(...).init, but that can be inconveniently long as Bearophile pointed out. Another solution is to do `enum nullState = Nullable!(...).init`, but it's then in the global scope, and it's annoying to create a new enum for each type you want to use Nullable with. Hopefully in the future we can deprecate Nullable in lieu of an Option type and fix these little mistakes. --
