On Saturday, September 15, 2012 22:12:57 Timon Gehr wrote: > In a sane type system, optionality is a concept separate from a > reference and it is much more general.
I'm not about to dispute that a better type system than we have could be devised, but what we have works well for the most part, and in every language that I've ever used that has anything like a pointer, pointers can be null. And D references are mostly treated like pointers, so it's not only perfectly natural for them to be nullable, it would be weird if they couldn't be. Regardless, we have what we have, and it's not going to change for D2. A type system which separated out nullability like you suggest (or like Alex suggested with the additon of ? to the type) would be a huge departure from what we have. - Jonathan M Davis
