On 2014-01-17 20:21:36 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> said:
On 2014-01-17 16:05, Michel Fortin wrote:
This is basically what everyone would wish for a not-null type to do.
The syntax is clean and the control flow forces you to check for null
before use. Misuses result in a compile-time error.
Yes, exactly. But the issue is that the compiler needs to be modified for this.
Andrei's post was referring at language/compiler changes too: allowing
init to be defined per-class, with a hint about disabling init. I took
the hint that modifying the compiler to add support for non-null was in
the cards and proposed something more useful and less clunky to use.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.ca
