It's an interesting problem. Originally I experimented with both having `` and `&` syntax, so `int&` being a ref (non null) and `int` being a pointer. The thing you notice then are two things:
1. You want almost all pointer parameters non null.
2. Non-null variables is very hard to fit in a language without constructors.
Approaches to avoid constructors/destructors such as ZII play very poorly with ref values as well. What you end up with is some period of time where a value is quasi valid - since non-null types need to be assigned and it's in a broken state before it's initially assigned.
It's certainly possible to create generic "type safe" non-null types in C3, but they are not baked into the language.
1. You want almost all pointer parameters non null.
2. Non-null variables is very hard to fit in a language without constructors.
Approaches to avoid constructors/destructors such as ZII play very poorly with ref values as well. What you end up with is some period of time where a value is quasi valid - since non-null types need to be assigned and it's in a broken state before it's initially assigned.
It's certainly possible to create generic "type safe" non-null types in C3, but they are not baked into the language.