On Monday, 27 August 2018 at 19:36:29 UTC, aliak wrote:

Then Nullable!(int*) would be the same as int*. Or even better maybe is to give a compiler error when you try and stuff a nullable type inside a Nullable. Because ... why?


Isn't it arguable, whether this is desired? I mean, in the present state you can separate the cases, whether the Nullable is set or not. This is a feature. If Nullable!(int*) behaves like int*, it would be somewhat more straight forward, which is maybe also a feature. But you loose something you can do right now...

Reply via email to