On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 00:12 +0200, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > On 08/14/2009 10:57 PM, Sam Danielson wrote: > >> Why shouldn't they be null? IMO, it would just add much more trouble. > >> Checking nulls is responsibility of the programmer. That is consistent with > >> every other language I know, including dynamic ones, C#, Java, etc. > >> > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of nullable types. The Vala > > tutorial explains, "By default, Vala will make sure that all reference > > point to actual objects." As I understand, the whole point of Foo? is > > so that we can have nulls without infecting Foo with a null variant. > > > > > > That section is wrong. (Who the hell wrote that?) > I've updated the tutorial regarding this. (diff 131)
> It only applies to method arguments and return values, not variables. > Any variable of a reference type can be null, regardless of how it is > defined. According to juergbi, it has always been that way, and it will > not change in the near future (the analysis is way too complicated, I > personally don't see the need anyway). > > _______________________________________________ > Vala-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
