(non)nullable types

[Christopher Wright]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> Except honestly, the number of cases where you _don't_ want something
> to be null far outweighs the number of cases where you _do_.  It's not
> exactly as insidious as the "throws" clause.

I see what you're saying, though I'm certain there is a large minority 
of cases in which I do want to allow nulls. I really want to see how 
painful it would be to have non-nullable types by default.

There's also the matter of, can I use a nullable variable like a normal 
variable? For example:
nullable Foo foo = something;
foo.doStuff();

Brian mentioned having to check if the variable is null before using it. 
This would not be easy to implement, and it might be a bit hard to use. 
Again, I'd have to see it in use.

While we're talking about hacking the compiler, how about const by 
default? :P