Re: Passing null for a class-typed argument renders catchable error ?!?
Posted by Michael Fesser on 01/13/08 22:42
..oO(Peter Pei)
>it is absolutely inconsistent and bad design.
NACK
>null should assume the role of
>any type, but not its own type. by saying = null, you are defining a default
>value in any other normal cases. here it happens to mean something else.
It means exactly the same thing - nothing (= no value).