On 2009-09-26 22:07:00 -0400, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> said:
[...] The facilities in D enable one to construct a non-nullable type, and they are appropriate for many designs. I just don't see them as a replacement for *all* reference types.
As far as I understand this thread, no one here is arguing that non-nullable references/pointers should replace *all* reference/pointer types. The argument made is that non-nullable should be the default and nullable can be specified explicitly any time you need it.
So if you need a reference you use "Object" as the type, and if you want that reference to be nullable you write "Object?". The static analysis can then assert that your code properly check for null prior dereferencing a nullable type and issues a compilation error if not.
-- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
