4 ms·
> Again, nullable types are not "baked into" the language. They are syntax sugar for a union type. So I can have my own type standing in for the ? instead of
by frowaway001 13y ago
> Again, nullable types are not "baked into" the language. They are syntax sugar for a union type.
So I can have my own type standing in for the ? instead of Null?
String? // Option[String]
...
String? // Validation[String]
- RivieraKid 13y ago"String?" is equivalent to "String|Null". Only the question mark syntax sugar is baked in.