On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Jeremie Pelletier <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The compiler won't be able to enforce *every* nonnull reference and > segfaults are bound to happen, especially with casting. While it may prevent > most of them, any good programmer would too, I don't remember the last time > I had a segfault on a null reference actually. > > I can see what the point is with nonnull references, but I can also see its > not a bulletproof solution. ie "Object foo = cast(Object)null;" would easily > bypass the nonnull enforcement, resulting in a segfault the system is trying > to avoid. > > What about function parameters, a lot of parameters are optional references, > which are tested and then used into functions whose parameters aren't > optional. It would result in a lot of casts, something that could easily > confuse people and easily generate segfaults. You haven't read my reply to your post yet, have you. Nullable. References. Exist. Too.
