On Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 19:22:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
Reading inpput from a csv file, and the value could either be
blank, na, or numeric. Nullable!MyClass could be used to
represent 3 states in your programming logic.
I'm not saying this is the best way to represent ternary states,
but it's not unreasonable.
Jordan Wilson
