Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Tue Jul 6 11:02:29 PDT 2010

"Adam Ruppe" <destructionator at> wrote in message 
news:mailman.288.1278428494.24349.digitalmars-d at
> On 7/6/10, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at> 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.)

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list