On 1/6/2014 7:01 AM, deadalnix wrote:
I know. But his code will behave in random ways, not instant fail. This example show that the instant fail approach you seem to like is inherently flawed.
That code is broken whether types are nullable or not.
Are you saying that dereferencing null must be undefined behavior, and not instant failure ? That contradict the position you gave before.
I've also said I think it is better to eliminate undefined behavior by defining it.
