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).
