Current sentiment on Nullable.get

[jmh530]

On Monday, 10 December 2018 at 15:47:53 UTC, aliak wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Sounds like a step forward, deprecating that.
>
> Do people consider Nullable a type of Optional thing in 
> general? I have a written a bit more details here [0] but 
> basically I don't think deprecating .get is enough to make it 
> "safe" - granted - depending on what safe means. In the context 
> of D a segfault is safe so maybe that's ok. But then 
> deprecating get doesn't add safety in that context anyway. And, 
> I've never really considered Nullable as something that 
> provides Optional semantics. But maybe that was it's intention?
>
> [0] 
> https://github.com/aliak00/optional/blob/03e0dc0594f1f19274389227e67dd3fba00a9d3f/README.md#what-about-stdtypeconsnullable-and-stdrangeonly

Does it make sense to deprecate Nullable as a whole, rather than 
just that piece? Why would I use Nullable when I can use your 
optional library?