On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:18:15 +0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
If you disallow null references what would "Object foo;" initialize to
then?
Nothing. It's a compile-time error.
Should:
int a;
be disallowed, too? If not (and explain why it should behave
differently), what about:
T a;
in generic code?
Functional languages don't distinguish between the two (reference or not).
We were discussing "non-null by default"-references because it's far less
radical change to a language that "non-null by default" for all types.
Once again, you are taking code out of the context. It is worthless to
discuss "int a;" on its own.
I'll try to but the context back and show a few concrete examples (where T
is a generic type):
void foo()
{
T t;
}
Results in: error (Unused variable 't').
T foo(bool someCondition)
{
T t;
if (someCondition) t = someInitializer();
return t;
}
Results in: error (Use of potentially unassigned variable 't')
T foo(bool someCondition)
{
T t;
if (someCondition) t = someInitializer();
else t = someOtherInitializer();
return t;
}
Results in: successful compilation
