null [re: spec#]

so so at so.do
Sun Nov 7 08:40:32 PST 2010


On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:30:56 +0200, foobar <foo at bar.com> wrote:

> bearophile Wrote:
>
>> foobar:
>>
>> > Any type can be wrapped by an OPTION type. trying to do the converse  
>> of this is impractical and is bad design.
>>
>> Discussing this is a waste of time now, this part of the D language  
>> will probably never change.
>> This is why other people and me are proposition something different.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> I haven't discussed syntax at all so to make clear:
> I'm not suggesting modifying existing pointers/references.
> I think D should add Non-Null references (maybe pointers too).
>
> I MUCH prefer to use a T! or T@ or whatever syntax to denote non-null  
> types than to disable constructors.
> Disabling stuff is a BAD design and is bug-prone.
> Prime example is Java's clone method which throws an exception by  
> default.
> The language should be additive, i.e. I should be writing what I want to  
> do, NOT listing all the possible things that I DON'T want to do.

Fine having a nun-null type or ranged integer or special float whatever in  
a language library,
but asking a new syntax for it? Not really.
D proved that it is capable of supporting anything in library,
if you or Bearophile or anyone else that is after this feature got a  
library solution, no one would be against it.

You all must be out of your minds asking such syntax, Isn't there enough  
retarded languages have that syntax?

Thanks.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list