Checking if a string is null

[Oskar Linde]

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Frits van Bommel wrote
> 
>> But the fact of the matter is, 'T[] x = null;' reserves space for
>> the .length and sets it to 0. If you have a suggestion for a
>> different value to put there, by all means make it.
> 
> Suggestion:
> After `T[] x= null;' `x.length == size_t.max' and `x.ptr == null', i.e.  
> `size_t.max' will no more be a valid length for an array.

Uhu... Why whould a slice of the full addressable memory space be a good 
initialization value?

> This is a hack to avoid some overhead in some places, but may introduce  
> more overhead in other places.

This entire discussion is trying to make todays T[] -- a slice type with 
value semantics and some provisions for making it behave as an array in 
some cases -- into a pure array type with a well defined null. You can't 
do that without breaking its slice semantics. A much better suggestion 
is Walter's T[new]. Make T[] remain the slice type it is today and make 
a distinct array type (preferably a by-reference type).

> Note: after `T[] x= null;' `x' holds an untyped array and so `y= x;' 
> should be a legal assignment for every `y' declared as `U[] y;' for 
> some type `U'---duck and run.

So you are proposing adding runtime type errors? :P


-- 
Oskar