►
From YouTube: .NET Design Review: Nullable Annotations
Description
We're trying to finish reviewing the nullable annotations for System.Runtime.
A
D
A
H
A
A
A
L
F
M
A
N
A
D
A
B
A
O
D
Q
F
O
R
Q
D
O
O
O
A
D
A
They
open
the
apex
fun
things
make
sense
again.
Alright,.
H
S
A
A
B
O
P
A
B
F
C
Q
G
F
Q
A
G
A
A
G
A
M
F
I
F
S
I
D
F
A
G
A
R
A
G
F
This
last
week
it
assumed,
if
it's
exactly
1
parameter.
That's
an
exact
match
on
the
signature,
so
in
the
params
array
is
null.
Instead
of
it
is
a
array
with
one
element
unless
you're
customizing
type
thing,
if
you
cast
it
to
the
member
type
of
the
array
that
it
then
has
to
do,
apparatus
conversion
to
call
me
I
think
it's
too
much.
As
do
you
object
to
the
change
so.
A
F
F
I
mean
nothing
else,
he
should
have
been
able
to
say
type
of
system
void
yeah
unless
the
compiler,
with
explicitly
out
of
its
way
it's
not
getting
it,
and
then
you
could
I
mean
at
this
point.
The
question
is
or
what's
more
concise,
upstream
type
of
string
get
containing
assembly.
Fine
type
is
a
cumbersome
external.
This
for
me
no
loose,
nothing.
G
F
L
Q
Q
I
G
G
A
F
I
J
A
J
F
So
again,
c-sharp
can't
represent
this,
but
it's
if
you're
declaring
fields
and
methods
in
global.
They
belong
to
no
typo.
So
the
type
of
builder
for
that
global
type
says
it
returns,
no
tech,
it's
possible
that
no
one
can
ever
actually
seen
that,
because
this
is
wrapped
in
a
raft,
a
name.
You
know
it's
so
deeply
wrapped
that
no
one
would
really
ever
get
access
to
this
builder.
F
It
seems
to
be
the
only.
This
is
the
only
builder
that
can
do
that.
So
we
theoretically
could
say
that
those
things
never
returned.
No,
but
I
can't
prove
that
you
can't
get
that
respect
in
what
type
the
type
builder
and
then
anything
that
referred
to
that
not
creating
type.
It
returns
null,
if
that
only
if
it
is
representing
the
global
type
to
hold
coals.
F
If
you
have,
if
you
create
an
assembly
builder
from
that,
create
a
module
builder
from
that
create
a
global
method,
and
then
in
that
global
method,
say,
please
give
me
the
type
of
work
if
we're.
If,
if
the,
if
the
method
builder
gives
you
back
the
type
builder
that
it
belongs
to,
then,
if
you
call
create
type
on
that
guy,
then
they
would
return
all
I.
F
M
F
Oh,
but
that
one
says
if
my
type
builder
is
the
hidden
global
type
returned
null,
which
is
so
declaring
type
from
saying
it
returns
type
question
mark
it
makes
sense
but
I
don't
again
I'm
fine,
saying
like
we
can
say
that
it
returns
a
question
mark
thingy,
I,
just
don't
think
a
user
can
ever
see
it
I
think
only
internal
implement
all
of
the
scope
that
you
can
get
to
a
is
hidden
global
type.
Is
anybody.
G
A
M
F
F
But
they're
looking
for
which
one
than
an
old
signature
it
get
token
for
the
overlook.
It
takes
a
bite
away.
What
about
it?
I,
don't
see.
I,
don't
see
an
exception
pass
on
that,
nothing,
so
ignore
ifs.
No
like
it.
It
appears
to
add
it
to
a
list
of
teeth
and
list
of
teak
and
totally
accept
Noll
as
an
element.
What
would
that
mean,
though?
I
don't
know.
G
F
A
A
A
G
F
R
N
F
I
M
F
C
A
F
F
G
O
L
F
F
E
H
A
A
N
H
R
F
A
I
just
wanted,
you
can't
look
into
it
alright,
but
we
do
agree
that
if
it's
only
for
the
default
instance,
you
would
not
market
inaudible
right,
I'm,
not
sure.
F
N
A
M
F
F
A
H
A
F
F
N
A
H
H
D
F
K
F
C
F
Culture,
resource
manager,
get
object
of
name
and
culture
should
accept
a
knowable.
Is
it
actually
thought
in
the
other
than
half
it?
So
the
the
one
that
takes
name
with
no
culture
Paul's
get
object
because
the
actual
workforce
with
null
and
then
the
the
one
that
accepts
the
culture
just
passes
that
without
validating
so
okay
looks
like
no
bones
in
just
find,
which
is
also
so
much
work
with
English.
F
P
O
H
A
F
I'm
just
wondering
what
it
does
if
it
can't
find
the
resource
thing,
so
we
see
better
throws
over
yeah.
It
throws
so
get
resource
data.
All
this
sets
resource
type
to
not
to
and
not
know
about
value
and
successful
return,
or
it
blows
them
or
well
unsuccessful
return.
Maybe
it
doesn't
returning
from
the
a
blows
up.
P
P
F
F
F
S
F
F
H
N
A
F
F
C
F
F
A
F
F
C
F
E
F
A
A
F
N
A
A
I
think
the
one
thing
we
can
do
is
like
you
know:
once
we
have
the
rules.
Hopefully
we
can
also
write
an
analyzer
that
catches
most
of
those
things.
The
ones
who
turn
on
the
analyzer
we
might
be
able
to
just
relatively
quickly
do
most
of
the
consistency
things
across
the
framework,
but
then
there's
the
long
tail
of
like
yep,
this
particular
API.
A
A
O
A
C
A
Then
I
think
we're
done
for
today
and
then
I
will
fix
it.
I
think
Steve
I
dropped
off
the
call
funny
enough.
So
the
only
thing
we
have
to
do
is
get
maybe
a
reviewer
to
handle
its
correctly.
A
O
I'm
already
merging
my
PRS,
even
though
they
have
no
abilities
so
that
for
p7
we
have
knowable
attributes
and
annotations,
and
we
have
greenlight
directors
to
lead
to
do
any
changes,
some
review
aid
to
fix
annotations
or
a
lot
bending
annotations,
though
I'm
not
that
concerned
about
Vivian.
He
know
about
two
bids
this
week,
all
right,
I,.