On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:30:56 +0200, foobar <f...@bar.com> wrote:
bearophile Wrote:
foobar:
> Any type can be wrapped by an OPTION type. trying to do the converse
of this is impractical and is bad design.
Discussing this is a waste of time now, this part of the D language
will probably never change.
This is why other people and me are proposition something different.
Bye,
bearophile
I haven't discussed syntax at all so to make clear:
I'm not suggesting modifying existing pointers/references.
I think D should add Non-Null references (maybe pointers too).
I MUCH prefer to use a T! or T@ or whatever syntax to denote non-null
types than to disable constructors.
Disabling stuff is a BAD design and is bug-prone.
Prime example is Java's clone method which throws an exception by
default.
The language should be additive, i.e. I should be writing what I want to
do, NOT listing all the possible things that I DON'T want to do.
Fine having a nun-null type or ranged integer or special float whatever in
a language library,
but asking a new syntax for it? Not really.
D proved that it is capable of supporting anything in library,
if you or Bearophile or anyone else that is after this feature got a
library solution, no one would be against it.
You all must be out of your minds asking such syntax, Isn't there enough
retarded languages have that syntax?
Thanks.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
