It's not safe until it's in the coffer

forax at forax at
Thu May 9 21:51:30 UTC 2019

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadamore at>
> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at>
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts at>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Mai 2019 19:54:17
> Objet: Re: It's not safe until it's in the coffer

> On 09/05/2019 13:35, forax at wrote:
>> yes, it's verbose by design.
> I object to this a bit.

if it's just a bit :)

> There will be cases where using nullable projection will be _the only_
> way to solve certain problems (e.g. to build value types that can
> reference to themselves). Forcing an heavy syntax on these cases seems
> punitive. 

it's notheavy, it's bulkier than the V? syntax

> You seem to assume that, once we have specialized generics,
> people will just use them and forget about nullable projections. I don't
> think that's the case, and some internal discussions we started (e.g. to
> sprinkle values on HashMap implementation) seem to point in that
> direction too.

no, i don't assume that, i assume that the nullable projection is a double edged sword so you can use it at your own risk but for that you have to opt-in and not use randomly V or V? because you don't want to know the difference.

> Maurizio


More information about the valhalla-spec-experts mailing list