(non)nullable types

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Christopher Wright" <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gn96qc$2aic$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> I want *warnings* about this.

Ok, now *that* I could live with (at least if we ever actually got the 
option to treat warnings AS warnings, but that's a whole other rant). 
Personally, I'd still prefer this particular thing to be an error rather 
than a warning (with an option to unsafe-cast it to a non-null for the rare 
case where the check is in an inner loop and might actually be a performance 
issue), but at least now I see your point.