From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: [Not important] the “not null” notation in Ada 2005
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:51:24 -0400
Date: 2011-03-25T11:51:24-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcchbar5hc3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: op.vswop2cgule2fv@index.ici
"Yannick DuchÔøΩne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> I remember some peoples says here, this is a pity to have ÔøΩnot nullÔøΩ
> annotations, while the case which should be clearly marked, is the one
> where a reference may be null. I'm OK with that principle. But
> concretely what would have been the notation ? ÔøΩmay be nullÔøΩ ? Two
> reserved words added for that ? A simple ÔøΩnullÔøΩ would not have been
> really expressive (just a though I get right a few minutes ago).
Take a look at OCaml, for example.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-25 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-25 15:45 [Not important] the “not null” notation in Ada 2005 Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2011-03-25 15:51 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2011-03-25 16:43 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2011-03-25 17:13 ` Robert A Duff
2011-03-25 17:29 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2011-03-26 7:02 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox