"Adam Ruppe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 7/6/10, bearophile <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think that's a good idea, you lose the standard API of Nullable, >> so >> it's worse than useless. > > Make that standard API free functions, like std.array does. Then, it > would work with all nullable items, and not just Nullable ones. > Uniformity is good. >
But ducks are bad. How about an INullable that's implemented by Nullable and implicitly implemented by classes? (That's one thing I like about C# - it uses nice safe explicit interfaces instead of compile-time duck-typing.)
