Non-nullable references, again

[Daniel Keep]

Don wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>>> A nicer syntax would be appreciated, but probably isn't a 
>>> requirement.  :)
>>>
>>>    -- Daniel
>>
>> A nicer syntax is suggested (the one used by C#):
>>
>> Foo nonNull = new Foo();
>> Foo? possiblyNull = null;
> Wouldn't this cause ambiguity with the "?:" operator?

That's why I didn't suggest it.  This wouldn't be the only 
context-sensitive bit of grammar C# has.

I think "@" and "%" are still up for grabs, but aren't particularly 
attractive...

   -- Daniel