Null pointer dereferencing in D

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:34:51 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 06/13/2014 11:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:23:00 +0000
> > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The approach consisting in having non nullable pointers/reference
> >> by default is the one that is gaining traction and for good
> >> reasons.
> >
> > That interacts _really_ badly with D's approach of requiring init values
> > for all types. We have enough problems with @disable this() as it is.
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> >
>
> @disable this() and nested structs etc. Trying to require init values
> for everything isn't an extraordinarily good idea. It roughly extends
> 'nullable by default' to all _structs_ with non-trivial invariants.

True, some types become problematic when you have to have an init value (like
a NonNullable struct to make nullable pointers non-nullable), but generic code
is way more of a pain to write when you can't rely on an init value existing,
and there are a number of places that the language requires an init value
(like arrays), making types which don't have init values problematic to use.
Overall, I think that adding @disable this() to the language was a mistake.

- Jonathan M Davis