On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Denis Koroskin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 23:44:58 +0300, Walter Bright < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> To eliminate null pointers is the same as shooting the canary in your coal >> mine because its twitter annoys you. >> > > I'm tired of pointing out that NO ONE is talking about eliminating null > pointers, but rather extending an existing type system to support non-nulls. > Your hate towards non-nullables comes from misunderstanding of the concept. > I've been thinking of Vala while reading this thread and its ideas. In Vala one puts a question-mark after a type to mark it as nullable, as all types are non-nullable by default. For instance, instance of T? can be of type T or null. The idea is that D could have it, but the other way around. Could there be support for explicitly specifying that an instance of T can only be T, never null?
