On Thursday, June 28, 2018 18:10:07 kdevel via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 at 21:54:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > [H]onestly, I don't understand why folks keep trying to put > > nullable types in Nullable in non-generic code. > > How do you signify that a struct member of class type is optional?
Structs aren't nullable, so wrapping them in a Nullable makes perfect sense. Whether they happen to be on the stack or members of another type is irrelevant to that. It's wrapping types like pointers and class references in a Nullable that's an odd thing to do - the types where someone might ask why the extra bool is necessary in the Nullable. Wrapping them in a Nullable makes sense in generic code, because the code isn't written specifically for them, but something like Nullable!MyClass in non-generic code is pointless IMHO, because a class reference is already nullable. - Jonathan M Davis