On 2/2/14, 12:05 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/2/2014 9:30 AM, Namespace wrote:
Sounds good. But why @nullable instead of C# choice of "Type?" ?
Let me rephrase that as "why use a storage class rather than a type
constructor?"
An excellent question.
One of the big problems with a type constructor is we've already got a
number of them - const, immutable, shared, inout.
This post is confused, sorry. const, immutable, shared, inout are
qualifiers (in addition to being type constructors). General type
constructors don't have a particular combinatorial problem.
Andrei
