Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:41:05 +0200, Simen kjaeraas wrote: > Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com> wrote: > >>> The answer to the OP's question is simple: null's type is not >>> expressible in D. >> >> That is a sad observation for a language that purports maturity beyond >> the epoch of C/C++/Java et. al. > > I'm curious - why does null need such a specific type?
It's much easier to write a specification, a compiler, and an automatic theorem prover for a language with a sane type system. The types and transitions are expressible with simple rules of logic. Now you need ad hoc special cases. Nothing else.
