On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 21:15:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yes, but if you declare a variable to contain a set, then by
definition
there is *something*, even if it's an empty set. For there to be
nothing, there shouldn't even be a variable in the first place.
The fact
that the variable exists and has an identifer means that there
is
*something*. So your argument is moot.
T
We can declare a variable to contain an object, and there can
still not be an object there.
You're trying to make arrays non-nullable. Which I suppose isn't
so bad, it is a structure after all. Why do we even allow
checking against null, can't do it with int or bool. (ok, I know,
breaks code).
