April 17, 2012
Another idea: instead scope, "in" can get a new functionality. Instead as a synonym for "const" it could mean "not null" for objects.
April 17, 2012
Namespace:
> Another idea: instead scope, "in" can get a new functionality. Instead as a synonym for "const" it could mean "not null" for objects.

Note that currently in D2 "in" means "scope const".

Bye,
bearophile
April 18, 2012
On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 23:56:12 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Namespace:
>> Another idea: instead scope, "in" can get a new functionality. Instead as a synonym for "const" it could mean "not null" for objects.
>
> Note that currently in D2 "in" means "scope const".
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Yes I know. But the importand fact is that it's only a shorthand, you could use it for something more meaningful.
I only want to point out how important this content is to me.
Many user in other languages are wishing for a non-null reference keyword (e.g. Java, C#). So why should D don't give a solution?

But i think, i'm probably the only one in D who really wants something like that.
April 18, 2012
Namespace:

> But i think, i'm probably the only one in D who really wants something like that.

I have discussed this topic three or more times, and opened an enhancement request around 2010-08-02: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4571

Bye,
bearophile
April 18, 2012
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 11:36:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Namespace:
>
>> But i think, i'm probably the only one in D who really wants something like that.
>
> I have discussed this topic three or more times, and opened an enhancement request around 2010-08-02:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4571
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

That is incredible. What are the reasons against such implementation?
I will open a new topic to discuss about that again.

February 22, 2013
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 11:36:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Namespace:
>
>> But i think, i'm probably the only one in D who really wants something like that.
>
> I have discussed this topic three or more times, and opened an enhancement request around 2010-08-02:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4571
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

It really would be great to get this fixed.  I do consider it "broken" right now, considering that @safe is supposed to (from all the docs I've read on it) make your program incapable of using pointers incorrectly, etc.

Also, the argument that C++ doesn't provide a better guarantee with references seems highly flawed, since it's deliberately using pointers to make the case that references are broken.  If you make a point of using references everywhere, C++ is *MUCH* better at this.
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home