On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 21:55:00 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
Now, if we wanted to add compiler support for non-nullable
references, many
more things would need to be decided - how do they look? Do
they assert
non-nullness upon initialization/assignment, or are external
checks required?
Same problem exists with any type with @disable this.
Does new Foo() return a non-nullable reference? Must we also
add scoped
non-nullness guarantees (if(foo != null) { /* foo is now
implicitly
convertible to non-nullable */ })?
if reference are non nullables, this example don't make any sense.
So, no. The stuff required to add @disable this() to the
language is not the
same that is required for non-nullable references. It's
certainly an important
part of it, but there's still more left, and it's going to make
the language
harder to implement. Adding a feature that lets non-nullable
references be
added in a library is much better.
It is. Having everybody considering it isn't is probably why
you'll find so much holes in NonNullable.
