On Saturday, December 01, 2012 05:42:23 deadalnix wrote: > On Saturday, 1 December 2012 at 04:32:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > On 11/30/2012 3:31 PM, Mehrdad wrote: > >> If that's the case, then we need to get rid of postblits > >> entirely. > > > > The only justification I've ever been able to come up with for > > postblits is implementing a reference counting type. > > Which have to check for null all over the place because it can be > uninitialized.
That's only an issue with a ref-counting type which is attempting to be non- nullable. Most shared pointers are nullable, making such checks be required regardless. In most cases, I would consider this to be a complete non-issue. - Jonathan M Davis