You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that explicit nulls are merged, I wanted to raise an issue of naming: Should we continue to use JavaNull for the null type that comes from the host system and is not checked? Isn't Java too specific, after all there's also a null in JS and in C, and whatever other language runtime Scala might be embedded in?
At least for JavaScript, all possible nulls would be explicitly written out in the façade types, which are written in Scala. So in Scala.js we'll never use the platform Null.
For Native it's less clear. An automated importer from C headers would probably choose to use the platform Null when typing pointers.
I believe UncheckedNull is a good one. It fits the narrative of Scala.js which has socalled unchecked behaviors for error conditions such as class cast and index out of bounds.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Now that explicit nulls are merged, I wanted to raise an issue of naming: Should we continue to use
JavaNull
for the null type that comes from the host system and is not checked? Isn'tJava
too specific, after all there's also a null in JS and in C, and whatever other language runtime Scala might be embedded in?Alternatives could be:
It would be good to get further suggestions and feedback on this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: