Nullable!T

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Adam Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.288.1278428494.24349.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On 7/6/10, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
>> I don't think that's a good idea, you lose the standard API of Nullable, 
>> so
>> it's worse than useless.
>
> Make that standard API free functions, like std.array does. Then, it
> would work with all nullable items, and not just Nullable ones.
> Uniformity is good.
>

But ducks are bad. How about an INullable that's implemented by Nullable and 
implicitly implemented by classes? (That's one thing I like about C# - it 
uses nice safe explicit interfaces instead of compile-time duck-typing.)