Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement LDM decision on nullability of ?? operator #33743

Closed
gafter opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

Implement LDM decision on nullability of ?? operator #33743

gafter opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
@gafter
Labels
Area-Compilers Bug New Language Feature - Nullable Reference Types Nullable Reference Types
Milestone
16.1

Comments

@gafter
Copy link
Member

gafter commented Feb 28, 2019

The expression e1 ?? e2 should result in the nullability from e2, with the inference that e1 can be null in e2 (and after the whole expression if reachable from e2).
@gafter gafter added this to the 16.1 milestone Feb 28, 2019
@gafter gafter self-assigned this Feb 28, 2019
@gafter gafter mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2019
Merged
@jcouv
Copy link
Member

jcouv commented Feb 28, 2019

When fixing this issue, we should look at ImplicitConversion_NullCoalescingOperator_01 and verify that it has proper expectations.

gafter added a commit to gafter/roslyn that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2019
@gafter
Implement LDM decisions on the behavior of ?? and ??= operators
a343392 
Fixes dotnet#33743
@gafter gafter mentioned this issue Mar 6, 2019
Merged
gafter pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2019
Implement LDM decisions on the behavior of ?? and ??= operators (#…
c3888c7 
…33892)

* Implement LDM decisions on the behavior of `??` and `??=` operators
Fixes #33743
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@gafter gafter

Labels
Area-Compilers Bug New Language Feature - Nullable Reference Types Nullable Reference Types
Projects
None yet
Milestone
16.1
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@gafter @jcouv