On 2/4/2014 4:23 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
For the rare cases where you actually want both versions to work,
I think you're making a vast assumption that the case is rare.
When I write utility functions, I want them to work on as wide a variety of
inputs as possible. Otherwise, they are not very useful.
you can write them twice or use a template (except in a virtual context), and
in both cases
you keep the efficiency of not checking for null when the argument is not
nullable.
That's just what I wish to avoid. Consider adding more pointer types - the
combinatorics quickly explode. Heck, just have two pointer parameters, and you
already have 4 cases.
I wonder how Rust deals with this.
In any case, I have yet to understand why @nullable as a storage class would be
any better. How do you solve that problem with a storage class?
Good question. I don't have an answer offhand.
