Struct with default ctor (Was: [dmd-beta] dmd 2.064 beta take 2)

[deadalnix]

On Saturday, 18 May 2013 at 20:59:41 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> @disable this is awesome, really. And you're right that it's 
> even better than
> simple non-nullable pointers. Lastly, it's great that it's 
> getting fixes. It's
> been one of my favorite non-working features. :p
>

The subject here is default constructor, not really nullable 
pointer. @disable this() cost as much as default constructor, but 
provide less. I don't see any objective reason to limit default 
constructor as disabled but not enabled.

I'd even argue that it actually cost more as it introduce yet 
another special case.

> In a way, I fear that we'll end up like C++, with bare 
> pointers/references
> being considered experts-only and 'special use', and everyone 
> will use smart
> pointers instead.

No what will happen it that we will have null all over the place 
with missing check, and no stack trace when it fails, because 
NullPointerError have been decided to be bad.

regular references/pointer are used way more than in C++ because 
you don't need to do the manual memory management that goes with 
it in D.

We will have more bugs and slower programs due to null checks all 
over the place, and unexpressed assumption about what can be null 
and what cannot.