News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The future of C# and Visual Basic [video]. Parent comment

Re:The future of C# and Visual Basic [video] by AndrewDucker on Monday November 03, 2014 @03:10PM (#8553153)
You don't need it for reference types, because those can just return a null.

I agree that it would be nice if C# checked that you dealt with the null case of the return - Resharper will happily warn me if I haven't, but it would be nice if the base compiler did. Maybe in the future!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The future of C# and Visual Basic [video] by Arnavion on Monday November 03, 2014 @05:47PM (#8554068)
>You don't need it for reference types, because those can just return a null.

The point is that it is not necessarily correct to conflate the nullability of the parse with the correctness of the parse. If I wanted to parse a string into a Foo, null might be a valid value for a successful parse to return, say because the rule is that the string "(null)" maps to a null Foo.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The future of C# and Visual Basic [video] by danbruc on Monday November 03, 2014 @06:19PM (#8554221)
There is a draft for pattern-matching in C# [1].

[1] https://roslyn.codeplex.com/discussions/560339

[ Parent | on HN ]