On 4/22/2016 11:42 AM, Quim Calpe wrote: > IMHO, the point of Optional types is the intention, if you get an > Option<Foo> from a method, you have to deal with a None branch. Of course > you can just unwrap and go on, but it's a developer decision to do that, > not an oversight as using a Foo|null (or ?Foo) as an object directly. >
IMOH, the point of ?T is the intention, if you get a null from a method,
you have to deal with a null branch. Of course you can just ignore it
and go on, but it's a developer decision to do that, not an oversight as
using a Option<T> as an object directly.
Sorry, but this works in both directions. The problem is not null, the
problem is that there is no system that warns you (e.g. a compiler)
about the missing null check. I think that Ceylon solved this problem
extremely nicely without the introduction of something special.
function fn(): ?T {}
$x = fn();
if (is $x T) {}
else {}
Not doing as above is a compiler error in Ceylon. However, I already
wrote multiple times that there are already statical code analysis tools
available that can find exactly such things in your code. One just needs
to use them.
--
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
