Timeline for Are null references really a bad thing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2017 at 13:32 | history | edited | Deduplicator | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added syntax-highlighting |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 6:29 | comment | added | sara | I think monadic binding is even more useful than pattern matching (although of course bind for Maybe is implemented using pattern matching). I think it's kind of amusing seeing languages like C# putting special syntax in for lots of things (??, ?., and so on) for things that languages like haskell implement as library functions. I think it's way more neat. null/Nothing propagation isn't "special" in any way, so why should we have to learn more syntax to have it? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 22:30 | comment | added | Jules | +1 for pattern matching. With the number of answers above that mention Option types, you'd think somebody would have mentioned the fact that a simple language feature like pattern matchers can make them much more intuitive to work with than nulls. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 12:29 | comment | added | Doval | @xfix I'm not familiar with Perl, but as long as you don't have a way of enforcing this type only contains integers as opposed to this type contains integers and this other value, you'll have a problem every time you only want integers. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00 | comment | added | null | What about null-like values in Perl 6? They are still nulls, except they are always typed. Is it still a problem you can write my Int $variable = Int, where Int is null value of type Int? | |
| S Mar 13, 2014 at 3:18 | history | answered | Doval | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Mar 13, 2014 at 3:18 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Doval |