On 11/7/10 9:08 AM, Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:01:32 +0300, steveh <steve...@hotmai.l> wrote:
Sounds more retarded than the notorious 'retard' here. It's because of
people like u that D3 might not come. If you disagree too much with AA
and WB they have no interest to make D3. This nonnull question might
be good place to give up.
Cool down and relax! His post wasn't actually that bad.
Clearly it is the preference of some that non-null references are the
default (so then one can use e.g. an option datatype to model nullable
references). It is also the preference of some that values are immutable
by default. I think it's too late to change such defaults at this point.
I think it's reasonable to let the current references and pointers
continue to be as they are, and work on @disable (particularly its
interaction with constructors) to make it easy to implement restricted
subsets of values. Then NonNull would be a useful library artifact among
other ones.
Andrei
