(non)nullable types

[Christopher Wright]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> You would only need to check when you're going to derefernce or convert to a 
> non-nullable. Nulls could still be stored and passed around without 
> checking. If this doesn't cover what you're concerned about, perhaps you 
> could provide an example?

Let's say I originally have this:

class Foo {
	void delegate()? dg;
	void doStuff() {
		if (dg) {
			// some long code path with code duplicated from
			// other methods in Foo
		} else {
			// some other long code path
		}
	}
}

Now I want to refactor that:


class Foo {
	void delegate()? dg;
	void doStuff() {
		if (dg) {
			doPart1;
			doPart2;
		} else {
			// some other long code path
		}
	}

	private void doPart1() {
		// use dg; why should I check?
	}
	private void doPart2() {
		// use dg; why should I check?
	}
}

Small examples don't show it very well.