Le 17/09/2012 19:07, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 9/17/12 12:41 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 17/09/2012 15:12, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 9/17/12 6:52 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Regardless, the solution at this point is going to be to add
std.typecons.NonNullable. It would be in there already, but the pull
request
with it needed more work, and it hasn't been resubmitted yet.
I don't think this is implementable as a lib in a satisfying way.
It is, but it needs just a bit of language support in constructors.
Walter never got around to it.
Andrei
So it isn't. That was my point. You need the compiler to help you on
that one.
I don't think that was your point. My understanding is that your point
was that (a) with or without @disable, one cannot implement NonNull
pointers in the library, and (b) there is need for _specific_ support
for NonNull in the language. Our position is that NonNull is only one of
several instances of a much more general pattern, which can be addressed
with @disable once it is properly tracked inside constructors.
Andrei
Quoting myself : « I don't think this is implementable as a lib in a
satisfying way. » (assuming, in the current state of things)
I made other point in other posts, but in that one, I just say that non
nullable references require compiler support in some way compared to
what we have now.
This support can be reserved to non null, or can be a larger problem
(like @disable as you mention) that allow to solve the non null problem.
I don't see how what I write limit things on that topic.
