Is Nullable supposed to provide Optional semantics?

[Chris Paulson-Ellis]

On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 22:08:59 UTC, vit wrote:
>     n = Nullable!Object.init;
>     assert(n.isNull == true);
> [...]
> more: 
> https://forum.dlang.org/thread/jrdedmxnycbqzcprebjl@forum.dlang.org?page=1

Thanks.

No-one in the linked thread seemed to know why .destroy is used 
in nullify. Looking at the commit history it used to be .clear, 
but maybe that did the same thing, I don't know.

I still think nullify is going beyond the Nullable remit for 
reference types. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll submit a bug 
report.

C.