Open question: what code pattern you use usually for null safety problem

[ddcovery]

On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 14:25:09 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 1/15/21 9:19 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> Something similar to BlackHole or WhiteHole. Essentially 
>> there's a default action for null for all 
>> types/fields/methods, and everything else is passed through.
>
> And now reading the other thread about this above, it looks 
> like this type is already written:
>
> https://code.dlang.org/packages/optional
>
> I'd say use that.
>
> -Steve

Yes, the Optional/Some/None pattern is the "functional" 
orientation for avoiding the use of "null".

Swift uses a similar pattern (and scala too) and supports the 
"null safety operators"  ?. and ??  (it doesn't work on "null" 
but on optional/nil).

The more I think about it, the more fervent defender of the use 
of ?. and ?? I am.

The misinterpretation about "null safety" is we talk about "null" 
reference safety, but this pattern can be used with "optional" 
to...

D has not optional/none/some native implementation and this is 
the reason we think about "?." as a "bad pattern" because we 
imagine it is for "null" values exclusively.

But like other operators, they could be overloaded and adapted to 
each library.

Well, I'm digressing:  good night!!!