On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 09:08:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/27/2013 2:05 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 08:06:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
That is not enough. NotNull must be initialized, so the
compiler
have to track initialization in way it don't do today. This
is
the exact same processing required to ensure non null
references.
@disable this(); would solve that.
That is the point, the logic required to support @disable this
is the exact same
that the one required to support non null. That is the
freaking same thing :
track initialization and yell at the programmer when you can't
find it.
Are you arguing that notnull should be a core language feature
instead of a library one?
I'm saying that NonNull require language support, either by
making it a first class entity, or by introducing some other
language feature like @disable this(). At the end it doesn't
change anything for the compiler, the exact same work have to be
done, simply on different entities. It can't be a 100% library
feature as the work around @disable this shows.
I think that ideally, nonnull pointer should be a core feature.
Considering history, a library solution is preferable.
But the argument about compiler feature don't stand, as nonnull
pointer and @disable this require the exact same processing in
the compiler.
