Feb 03
Luca Bolognese has put up a three part series on .NET’s Nullable<T>.
In his posts he describes the reasons behind three design choices:
- Why not just use SQL semantics for null?
- Why null == null doesn’t imply null >= null and null <= null?
- Why inside a generic class with a type parameter t the expression t == null will return false, when t is a nullable type and the value of it is null.
Part One: Why not just SQL?
Part Two: a == b -> a>=b && a <=b ?
Part Three: Nullable as type parameter in a generic class
Will Java have a Nullable?
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:28 pm
What’s the #1 most thrown exception?
NullReferenceException.
NonNullable would be FAR more valuable. Not to say I don’t appreciate the effort behind Nullable because I do, but we’re still not fixing the real problem.
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:28 pm
What’s the #1 most thrown exception?
NullReferenceException.
NonNullable would be FAR more valuable. Not to say I don’t appreciate the effort behind Nullable because I do, but we’re still not fixing the real problem.