Re: Is NullableRef checked at compile time?
On 05/23/2016 08:10 PM, cy wrote: I was squinting at the std.typecons.NullableRef code and it _looks_ like isNull is only checked at runtime (and not checked at all in release mode!) but D has surprised me before in its ability to pre-calculate stuff during compilation. NullableRef is little more than a plain pointer. In particular, it allows nulling the reference. Guarding against null dereferences doesn't seem to be on its agenda at all. I was thinking of using something like this: http://arsdnet.net/dcode/notnullsimplified.d ...which does the check once (during runtime) but after that it's compile-time verified not to have a null pointer. (Sort of like C++ references!) I think using NullableRef instead would have every instance of getting the pointer perform the check at runtime, even if it has already been verified as not null. That's correct, right? Yes I know, premature optimization etc, but I was just curious if a NotNull template might be a stronger declaration of a pointer's nullness. Notice the different name. The goals of NotNull and NullableRef seem to be entirely different. Also note that NotNull uses `assert` for the check, too. So there's no check with -release either. Can easily change that to `enforce`, of course.
Re: Is NullableRef checked at compile time?
On Monday, 23 May 2016 at 18:10:14 UTC, cy wrote: I was squinting at the std.typecons.NullableRef code and it _looks_ like isNull is only checked at runtime (and not checked at all in release mode!) but D has surprised me before in its ability to pre-calculate stuff during compilation. [...] NullableRef is checked at compile time only if you "hold the door".^^
Is NullableRef checked at compile time?
I was squinting at the std.typecons.NullableRef code and it _looks_ like isNull is only checked at runtime (and not checked at all in release mode!) but D has surprised me before in its ability to pre-calculate stuff during compilation. I was thinking of using something like this: http://arsdnet.net/dcode/notnullsimplified.d ...which does the check once (during runtime) but after that it's compile-time verified not to have a null pointer. (Sort of like C++ references!) I think using NullableRef instead would have every instance of getting the pointer perform the check at runtime, even if it has already been verified as not null. That's correct, right? Yes I know, premature optimization etc, but I was just curious if a NotNull template might be a stronger declaration of a pointer's nullness.
