On Saturday, September 15, 2012 15:24:27 Henning Pohl wrote: > On Saturday, 15 September 2012 at 12:49:23 UTC, Russel Winder > > wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-09-15 at 14:44 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > > […] > > > >> Anyway, it's too late to change it now. > > > > I disagree. There are always opportunities to make changes to > > things, > > you just have manage things carefully. > > I don't know if people really use the ability of references being > null. If so, large amounts of code will be broken.
Of course people use it. Having nullable types is _highly_ useful. It would suck if references were non-nullable. That would be _horrible_ IMHO. Having a means to have non-nullable references for cases where that makes sense isn't necessarily a bad thing, but null is a very useful construct, and I'd _hate_ to see normal class references be non-nullable. - Jonathan M Davis
