On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 12:13:30 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 11:12:10 UTC, Diggory wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 05:56:42 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 02:23:18 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Let's say you define an enum, which is to be used as a
variable:
...
Thoughts?
I think it is simpler to set a first enum member as invalid.
However, I like an idea of supporting analogue of @disable
this() mark for any user-defined types, not structs (I mean
it would be pretty good if such feature applied on classes
could stop creating null references - it's actually not
adding new feature, but increasing scope of existing feature).
It's completely meaningless on classes: it's already
impossible to create an instance of a class which is null,
because if it's null it's not an instance of the class in the
first place.
This is again using wrong terminology to move meaning from type
to pointed data (if any) as happened recently with dynamic
arrays. Nothing on the Earth promises that if in one language
class type is allocated memory, than in another language class
should be also so, and if it is not, then hoards of programmist
should use first naming conversion with no reason. Consult the
spec what class type is in D and please do not confuse D with
other languages.
My point is completely applicable to D - it applies to any form
of polymorphic type. In D the type of a class variable is
determined at runtime, not at compile time, so what you're saying
makes no sense.
The feature you want is exactly what NotNull!T does, the way you
are suggesting of implementing it doesn't work.
