Stas,
> I think this is way too much magic. This means default is no longer a > default, but instead some obscure flag that somehow is carried over to > the setter. I do not think redefining initialization as permitting nulls > is a good idea, initialization and value set are two different things. "Too much magic"? It's completely consistent with how method parameters work now. In fact, I'd argue that introducing a new syntax for this would be inconsistent with the current paradigm. This becomes especially true if initializers are added, where the property would be initialized to a non-null value. Hence adding the ability for it to *never* actually *be* null in the first place... Anthony
