On 5/19/13 5:52 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 at 20:03:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/19/13 3:36 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 at 19:10:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
No, your argument is ridiculous. You make a yarn with precious little
detail that describes for everything everyone knows a textbook race
condition, essentially ask that you are taking by your word that
non-null would miraculously solve it, and, to add insult to injury,
and when we don't buy it, you put the burden of proof on us. This is
quite a trick, my hat is off to you.
I described a very usual null bug : something is set to null, then to a
specific value. It is assumed not to be null. In a specific case it is
null and everything explode.
The concurrent context here made it especially hard to debug, but isn't
the cause of the bug.
Additionally, if you don't have enough information to understand what
I'm saying, you are perfectly allowed to ask for additional details This
isn't a shame.
Your argument has been destroyed so no need to ask details about it.
Replace "null" with "invalid state" and it's the same race in any
system. Let's move on.
"I don't want t to understand because I know I'm right. The fact you
solved that issue and I didn't is irrelevant, I know better."
Nobody knows what the issue is. It's all unstated assumptions leading to
vague claims. You have been challenged to explain it so as to count as
an anecdote in favor of non-null pointers - which it may as well be! -,
and failed to raise to it.
Andrei
