Regan Heath:
Plus, I don't buy the argument that having to explicitly type
".get" will stop anyone from automatically coding statements
like:
val g: Option[T] = f.doSomething()
g.get.doSomethingElse()
and suffering the exact same null pointer exception/error
despite using Option and boxing into a Not-Null type.
Like checked exceptions people will simply ignore the
possibility of error and type the above anyway. So, end
result, it's just more typing for no real gain.
Mark C. Chu-Carroll is very intelligent and well read, most times
he's right. My Scala experience is limited, so I don't first-hand
how much Mark is right this time.
I think having a type for a reference/pointer that can't be null
is useful. With it in many situations you need no "get", because
there no risk of it being null. So the discussion here is for the
other cases where you need a reference that can be null too. Such
cases are surely just part of the cases where in D now you
receive a generic nullable reference/pointer. So even if "get" is
about as dangerous as normal references, the situation is better
still.
Time ago I have suggested a syntax like Foo@ to represent in D
the subtype of Foo references that can't be null.
Bye,
bearophile
