If you don't want to use a typed-nullable, you always have this (older) option
available:
LeapDay(yr) = isLeapYr(yr) ? Date(yr,2,29) : nothing
The whole point of Nullable is to provide a means to prevent type-instability
problems. If you don't want to think about types (and don't care about the
resulting type instability), then you don't have to use Nullable.
Best,
--Tim
On Monday, February 08, 2016 08:57:30 PM Michael Landis wrote:
> Why can't there be a base type upon which all others are based (perhaps by
> default)? The base class could handle the Nullable situation and
> everything else would magically inherit that capability. Making a union of
> a NULL and the actual type is pretty painful for the programmer. Weren't
> we going for a smart compiler that would make life easier on the
> programmer? What we have now is programmers going out of their way to make
> life easy for the compiler. That seems back-assward to me.
