On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:24:46 +0200, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
No you are distording what I say.
I am.
I said, and repeat it for the nth time, that the job compilerwise is the
exact same.
And I'm saying (for the nth time - or is it n+1th?) it isn't, because there
are other issues that also need to be fleshed out for non-nullable
pointers.
The code sample you present me is completely stupid. It simply show that
you are confused between compiler implementation and language design.
No, it shows that I'm confused by your consistently claiming that
non-nullable
pointers only require that the compiler track initialization. This is *not*
enough.
But really, at this point we either actually do agree and just use
different
words, or we'll never agree.
--
Simen
