D's greatest mistakes

Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail
Tue Dec 14 04:46:24 PST 2010


On 10/12/2010 20:31, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/10/10 10:41 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> On 30/11/2010 20:47, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> Same discussion goes about non-nullable. We don't need the compiler to
>>> understand non-nullable types, we need to imbue the compiler with the
>>> ability to enforce arbitrary user-defined state invariants, non-null
>>> being one of them.
>>>
>>
>> That would be great. That would be *really* great. There are lots of
>> useful invariants one might want to express. (something like Java's
>> wildcards for containers, or numeric ranges, maybe ownership
>> relationships, etc.)
>>
>> However, just as it would be very useful, wouldn't it be an incredibly
>> compex feature set to implement, at least in a sufficiently generic and
>> useful way? Complex enough for it to be something that could not be
>> worked in anytime soon?
>
> It's not complex, and the technology is understood. There is only a need
> to handle flow inside constructors carefully.
>

Cool. Looking forward to that then.

>> Because the impression I get from Steven and others, is that this issue
>> is quite critical, and makes writing D code unpleasant in many
>> situations (I myself can't agree or disagree, haven't used D2 enough in
>> pratice, but their arguments and experience seem convincing)
>
> Most languages do fine without non-nullable types, so I don't see the
> urgency.
>

I wast talking about tailconst/Rebindable, not non-nullable. We can do 
fine without non-nullable, yeah (I think I've said so recently).


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list