A couple of thoughts/queries.

[Robby]

Frank Benoit wrote:
> Walter Bright schrieb:
>> Robby wrote:
>>> Anyways, what I'm in hopes of finding is a way to tell the compiler
>>> that I never want null, ever. I want an instance of the class and
>>> that's that. The whole idea of taking every lil runtime hit for
>>> checking  and the code cruft for writing it when in fact it's
>>> something that seems to be easy for a compiler to do the work for me.
>> The hardware will do the check for null pointer for you every time you
>> do a dereference.
> 
> I think he is talking about compile time check.
> Something like non nullable storage class?

Exactly.

Having a storage class 'enforce' that only allows non nullable types 
allows has a few advantages as far as I see it.

It's self documenting. It gives a contractual saftey to the implementor 
of the method/function. and it removes a lot of the cruft that the 
compiler already knows. (which is something I took notice D tends to do 
on a lot of other things.)

I know that the general consensus around D tends to be c/c++, but 
there's a solid selling point for us Java shops too, and this is one 
crufty piece that is littered through our code we'd really like to try 
and remove at some point.