| |||||||||||||
RE: nullable pointersRE: nullable pointersPosted Apr 1, 2011 13:33 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)In reply to: RE: nullable pointers by paulj Parent article: GCC 4.6.0 released
> Sure, but you still have a specialised nil type. Whether you use a null reference on a List type to denote the end of the list or a special EmptyList class, it still means your code has to take to check what exactly the reference is pointing to before going through it to avoid a runtime exception.
How many times do you want me to repeat this? The fact that you need a way to represent the empty list does not mean that you need nullable pointers _everywhere_, even where they _don't_ have any purpose (unlike the list case).
(Log in to post comments)
RE: nullable pointers Posted Apr 1, 2011 14:25 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
That isn't what you were arguing earlier though. You have been arguing that nullable types are *always* a bad thing (in a grandparent to this post) and there is *never* a need for them (to paraphrase several other comments of yours).
To my mind, having to go from checking the value of a reference to checking other properties of a composite object (the type, or a length attribute), and still being left open to runtime-exceptions (with a different name) if you forget, means you still are facing fundamentally the same problem.
Can the compiler maybe catch a couple more problems it wouldn't otherwise. Sure. Is it a silver bullet? Sadly, still no.
|
|||||||||||||