"foobar" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:ib5l2a$1v...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > >> "foobar" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message >> news:ib3a8k$1i5...@digitalmars.com... >> > 1. the INVENTOR of the "reference" concept himself admits that this is >> > a >> > flawed design. >> > see: >> > http://qconlondon.com/london-2009/presentation/Null+References:+The+Billion+Dollar+Mistake >> > >> >> First of all, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. Second, there >> are >> plenty of cases where run-time nullability is useful and where lack of it >> is >> problematic at best: A tree or linked list, for example. The "null >> object" >> idiom doesn't count, because all it does is just reinvent null, and in a >> pointlessly roundabout way. >> > > You seem to contradict yourself a bit here.
It's been awhile since I read that article you linked to, but from what I remember, it sounded to me like he was saying that nullability period was bad, and that there should never be any nulls (but maybe I'm just misremembering). So I thought you were also saying that there should not be any nullability. >As you pointed out yourself bellow, if you really *want* to use nullable >types than you should explicitly use option!T instead of T. Yup, I think we completely agree on everything here.