August 28, 2019 20:email@example.com (Mark Randall)
On 28/08/2019 20:48, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Sure, that works. But I don't see any way this clunker is better than
Because it's explicit, and incrementing null is mathematically
unintuitive. After all, null does not exist anywhere in the set of
natural numbers, so Roman etymology aside, adding 1 to it shouldn't
magic it into a completely different type without some explicit cast.
?? Let's you go "I know this index may not exist, if it doesn't, use 0
instead". No funky type coercions that are in no way apparent from
looking at the code.
To use the analogy someone posted elsewhere... the training wheels are
coming off. Time to be responsible and type those few extra characters
to be clear on your intent.