On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:42:32 +0200, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/18/2013 4:13 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:14:30 +0200, Walter Bright
<[email protected]>
wrote:
What default would you use for non-null pointers?
Damnit, I thought we'd gotten through to you. non-null pointers have no
default, and it is a compile-time error not to initialize them.
See my reply to deadalnix.
On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:41:48 +0200, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
D has that:
@disable this();
which is not the same thing as allowing default constructors. See:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10102
Oh, absolutely. I'm not at all claiming they are (Nor do I think others
claim
that). It's just it was so hard to make you see the value of non-nullable
pointers, and I feared you'd regressed.
@disable this is awesome, really. And you're right that it's even better
than
simple non-nullable pointers. Lastly, it's great that it's getting fixes.
It's
been one of my favorite non-working features. :p
In a way, I fear that we'll end up like C++, with bare pointers/references
being considered experts-only and 'special use', and everyone will use
smart
pointers instead.
--
Simen
