(non)nullable types

[Nick Sabalausky]

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:25:55 +0300, Denis Koroskin wrote:
>
>> So, let's ask the community: Would you like to see nullable types in D?
>>
>> http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/539369-138652 (please, don't abuse
>> by voting multiple time)
>>
>> Explain your reasoning in newsgroups. Thank you.

Yes: You don't always need an object to be nullable, and in those cases, 
having it nullable only serves to create a need for extra checking (Take a 
look at the ANTLR/StringBuilder Java source to see what happens when 
nullability goes too far. Disclaimer: I don't mean that as a jab at 
ANTLR/StringBuilder or the people behind it).

However, I could be swayed to change my mind against it if it were shown 
that nullable/nonnullable could not be done without ending up with a bunch 
of compatibility/conversion/API problems.

BTW, May I politely refer whoever used/made micropoll to the "OT: Scripting 
on websites [Was: Re: QtD 0.1 is out!]" sub-discussion over on 
digitalmars.D.announce? ;-)