On 5/27/13 5:17 AM, deadalnix wrote:
I'm saying that NonNull require language support, either by making it a first class entity, or by introducing some other language feature like @disable this(). At the end it doesn't change anything for the compiler, the exact same work have to be done, simply on different entities. It can't be a 100% library feature as the work around @disable this shows.
The difference is that @disable this() and friends allows implementing NonNull PLUS a host of other restricted types, whereas plopping NonNull in the language just stops there. Big difference.
I think that ideally, nonnull pointer should be a core feature. Considering history, a library solution is preferable. But the argument about compiler feature don't stand, as nonnull pointer and @disable this require the exact same processing in the compiler.
No. Andrei
