Re: Null references (oh no, not again!)

[Christopher Wright]

BCS wrote:
Hello Christopher,
BCS wrote:

Your right, but if you switch to a class and factory with no public
constructor, you can make it work. The problem of perf going down the
drain is avoidable if you can (in that mode) enforce compile time
checking of most cases and requiter calls to do run time checks for
the rest. If the template works right, than flipping back to
alias/typedef mode leaves the run time checks and leave the unchecked
code as correct while doing away with the perf problems.

If you use a class, you're begging the question. It's just that you'll
have a null NotNull!(T) rather than a null T.

Granted, you can use opAssign(T) instead, but you still need
contracts.


That won't be an issue because it's a run time concern and I am 
proposing that the class based version never even run. In fact it could 
even not be runable. All it does is enforce usage patterns that do work 
correctly with a different set of definitions.

I don't understand what you are saying. If you can't run a program that 
uses NotNull, who in their right mind would use it?