Re: Nullable or Optional? Or something else?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Danny Wilson wrote:
Op Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:55:53 +0200 schreef Andrei Alexandrescu 
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>:

 So if pointers wouldn't be considered evil,  Maybe!T*  would suffice?
 Can someone point me out what the big difference is between ref and 
simply disallowing pointer arithmitic?  Is it marketing?

Ref means lvalue of type T. Pointer is a type distinct from T. So 
although NullableRef!T is substitutable for an lvalue of type T, 
Nullable!(T*) is not.


Andrei

Thanks. I googled first but couldn't find some explicit documentation 
about 'ref'  just it being mentioned here and there :-)

Are there any problems with something like:

 Nullable!(ref T)

?

I'd love for that to work, but ref T is not a type. "ref" is a storage 
class that's allowed only in a function declaration context. (What "ref" 
means in that context is pass or return by reference as opposed to the 
default pass by value.)

Andrei