Denis Koroskin: > 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.
The nullables/nonnullables topic is not basic stuff, but it's not a too much complex thing. In my bug report I have explained about adding both the ? and @ suffix to reference/pointer types (? is for the nullables), so Walter knows and understands what you are saying. A temporary experimental fork of DMD, with nullable types + null path analysis as explained in this thread (I have an idea to improve the way Spec# manages arrays of nonnull references, with a kind of loop variant that in many cases avoids testing all items again) may be created to try these ideas experimentally in D (despite I think it's not a feature for D2, it's for D3). This may show how much bad or good that extension is. But it's a lot of work. Bye, bearophile
