Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/2/14, 12:05 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 9:30 AM, Namespace wrote:
>> Sounds good. But why @nullable instead of C# choice of "Type?" ?
>
> Let me rephrase that as "why use a storage class rather than a type
> constructor?"
>
> An excellent question.
>
> One of the big problems with a type constructor is we've already got a
> number of them - const, immutable, shared, inout.

This post is confused, sorry. const, immutable, shared, inout are 
qualifiers (in addition to being type constructors). General type 
constructors don't have a particular combinatorial problem.

Andrei