- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:33:01 +0200
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:11:57 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Dominique Hazael-Massieux: >> Arguably, this is something that can be fixed in the Contacts API, but >> before submitting the bug report, I was wondering what was the rationale >> for forbidding the use of "?" on interface types; in particular: >> • why interface types include the null value? >> • why is it forbidden to make nullable a type that already includes the >> null value? > > I just chose null to be in the interface types because I thought it was > much more common to want reference values to be null than primitive > values. There is certainly an argument for changing this. The > alternative is to do something like what Anne has done in Web DOM Core, > and use [NoNull] annotations (or we could introduce an "!" after > interface names to “remove” null). I’m open to opinions on which way to > go. There is an open bug report on this wherein Darin Adler suggests having non-nullable interface types by default rather than inventing a [NoNull] type. I think I like that better. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 08:40:12 UTC