On 04/14/2011 09:06 PM, bearophile wrote:
But I guess optionality could, and should, extend to non-ref types; thus, null
> is just a particular case of non-existence. And this would apply especially
on
> function parameters:
> void f (int i?) {...}
From C# experience it seems non-ref nullable types are not so useful (and it's
not hard to implement them with the language itself).
Dunno C# at all.
But I find optionality far more useful for non-ref types, since in the general
case there is no truelly special or invalid value like null. What value means
undefined/inexistent/non-provided, for an int? a bool? Unlike for ref'ed types
(actual pointers/classes/arrays) we simply cannot express this without language
support.
This also leads to actual distinction of null and [] or "" for arrays &
strings. Just dreaming...
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
