On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 20:40:40 Meta wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 at 19:23:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 19:53:43 Meta wrote: > >> Yes. It is very important not to allow direct access to the > >> underlying value. This is important for ensuring that it is not > >> put in an invalid state. This is a mistake that was made with > >> std.typecons.Nullable, making it useless for anything other > >> than > >> giving a non-nullable type a null state (which, in fairness, is > >> probably all that it was originally intended for). > > > > It's arguably pretty pointless to put a nullable type in > > std.typecons.Nullable. If you want a nullable type to be null, > > just set it to > > null. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > See the discussion from the other thread for why it can be useful > to wrap a nullable reference in a option type (nullable is a > pseudo-option type).
I know. And I still think that it's pointless - and it incurs extra overhead to boot, making it _worse_ than pointless. But clearly there's disagreement on the matter. - Jonathan M Davis