On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:58:56 +0400, dennis luehring <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 29.10.2010 09:26, schrieb Roman Ivanov:
They would be a great help in debugging programs, for example.
NullPointerException is probably the most common error I see in Java.
95% of all times it gets thrown in some weird context, which gives you
no idea about what happened. The result is a long and tedious debugging
session.
100% correct - but to have null-able types help to writer code faster in
the prototype phase, and not having them will also change the way
developers are "forced" to write code
and there are million developers out there who likes/and use null-able
values for flow-control - if the null-able "feature" is removed without
something that keeps the style working, you will loose them, or much
more evil, they will try to code around the non-null-able-style getting
back to there well known null-able behavior, by using bools, ints,
strings whatever -> that will not help in library growth around D
try comming up with an pattern that keeps both pro/cons...
No one is talking about removing nullable references but rather adding
non-nullable types and making them default. You could still achieve old
behavior if it is needed (most proposed proposed syntax):
Foo? foo = stuff.find(predicate);
if (foo is null) {
// not found
}
