On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: > Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >> >> It wouldn't. The compiler wouldn't allow it. It would force you to >> initialize it. That is the entire point of nonnull references. > > Initialize it to what? > > A user-defined default object? What should happen if that default object is > accessed? Throw an exception? <g>
The point of using a nonnull type is that you *never expect it to be null ever*. So you would be initializing it to some useful object. If you *want* null, you'd use a nullable reference. > How would you define an "empty" slot in a data structure? A nullable reference.
