On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 14:36:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
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.
My point being that this is the exact same feature, from a
compiler perspective.
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.
See above. Tracking initialization, that's it.
