DIP32: Uniform tuple syntax

[Maxim Fomin]

On Saturday, 6 April 2013 at 08:10:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Zach the Mystic:
>
>> Not disagreeing, but you had mentioned nullable types before, 
>> and I was wondering what they might look like also. Have you 
>> made an enhancement for these I could examine?
>
> I opened this:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4571
>
> Part of the syntax is:
>
> T? means T nullable
> T@ = means not nullable.
>
> But that ER is a confused mess, and in the meantime the 
> @disable was introduced. Now the probability of such nullable 
> syntax+semantics to be introduced in D is very low, so probably 
> I will close down that ER.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Once dmd pull 1724 is merged, it would be possible to write:

class A {}

enum E : A
{
    e = new A
}

void main()
{
   E e; //a is allocated on heap
}

So, E type is some kind of nullable type (but this approach has 
drawbacks).