On Tuesday, 28 May 2013 at 13:17:37 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:35:22 +0200, deadalnix
<deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Indeed. But not with @disable this() itself. If you don't like
the way
it's implemented - roll your own, it's in the library.
@disable this isn't a feature you can implement as a lib. You
can't roll out your own.
It is. Having everybody considering it isn't is probably why
you'll find so much holes in NonNullable.
It isn't. See above.
It is; see above :D
More generally, @disable this imply that you have to explicitly
init something. Just as non nullable. This is the exact same
problem to solve.
