Rolf Bjarne Kvinge-2 wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I'll drop this point.
>>
>> It would have been really really simple when the language was conceived
>> to consider that a simple test for object existance should not require
>> the
>> specification of a null constant;
>
> It would make things very weird, things like !((object) true)) would
> return
> true.
>
>
How does that expression even mean anything?
Wouldn't you get like expected operator before true ?
{
bool whatever = true;
16: if( !((whatever)true)))
Console.WriteLine( "true" );
else
Console.WriteLine( false" );
}
Program.cs(16,47): error CS1002: Expecting `;'
Rolf Bjarne Kvinge-2 wrote:
>
>> nor should it require the extra overhead of a comparison operator. A
> really simple check for existance.
>
> A few more characters generally make a language more explicit and easier
> to
> understand, and it avoids weird issues like the above, which can be really
> annoying if you stumble upon them.
>
> Rolf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist - [email protected]
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Object-additional-implicit-operator.-tp18992151p19004012.html
Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
