►
From YouTube: .NET Design Review: Nullability Custom Attributes
Description
We'll take a look at applications of new custom attributes to help the nullability analysis.
A
So
now
we
are
live
with
whatever
it
takes
to
get
this
thing
going,
all
you
seems
to
be
working
as
well,
so
hopefully
this
was
that
all
right,
so
what
I
really
wanted
was
getting
the
video
link.
E
A
A
A
F
F
E
A
B
B
D
A
A
E
C
A
C
A
The
usually
don't
accept
one,
that's
the
problem
like
I'm
going
for
the
compare
ones
you
may
be
right,
but
for
the
comparables
we
basically
gave
up
because
we
nothing
implements
a
comparable
offspring
question
mark,
but
you
can
only
move
around
right,
a
comparable
strain
right.
So
that's
and
I
think
we
just
applied
the
same
mechanism
to
the
compare
or
even
though
they're
given
me
do
extrinsic.
E
A
E
A
A
B
E
C
C
D
A
A
What
I'm
saying
I
just
gave
you
two
examples
where
both
cases
are
broken,
because
it
depends
on
whether
you
get
data
auto
you
get
you
put
data
in,
which
is
what
is
basically
what's
more
deliberative
of
the
covariance,
which
is
why
it
makes
sense
that
they
effectively
modeled
after
the
normal
covariance
rule.
So
the
underlined
so
compare
cannot
be
variant
with
the
class,
would
only
make.
E
A
A
F
B
B
B
B
A
D
D
A
A
A
B
You
I
see
his
or
and
I
hate
it
when
you
have
like
one
pixel
of
the
target,
there's
not
a
Tirana
that
to
be
if
balls,
yeah.
A
I
mean
it's
a
weird
gap
in
the
sense
that
we
don't
support
any
of
the
contract
stuff
right.
Look.
The
only
reason
why
we
had
those
annotated
is
because
those
are
effectively
equivalent
to
inserts,
but
the
problem
is
that
it
basically
the
code
contracts
only
work
when
you
do
our
writing.
Otherwise,
they're,
basically
new
ops,
and
we
don't
want
them
anywhere.
A
Yeah
I,
don't
know
what
to
do
with
that.
I
mean
I
generally
like
it
would
think
we
should
deprecated
the
whole
thing
and
then
to
say
that
maybe.
C
It's
a
case
where,
like
post
three,
oh
maybe
c-sharp,
9
or
some
future
depending
on
ask,
you
could
say,
have
an
attribute
that
says
this
condition
is
validated
to
be
true
by
this
method,
in
which
case
the
compiler
would
say.
If
the
expression
passed
into
the
method
is
true,
then
you
can
assume
that
it's
true
or
not
yeah.
A
E
You
would
not
sing
like
birds
like
insurers
in
whatever
right
is
that
those
are
basically
just
ensuring
that
the
type
signature
that
you
have
is
what
you
said.
It
would
be
so
like
if
you
said
that
it
was
not
enough,
and
you
didn't
put
a
question
mark
there
and
then
you
add
a
contractor
insurers,
verify
that
you
actually
did
this
correctly.
So
it's
just
it's
just
verifying
your
signature
that
you
already
have.
It
doesn't
communicate
in
any
way
right.
C
A
A
C
A
C
D
C
A
A
D
A
B
B
D
C
E
E
E
F
C
E
A
A
A
F
A
I
mean
to
be
fair,
we
only
reviewed
the
attributes.
We
put,
we
didn't
review
the
areas
where
we
didn't
put
attributes,
but
at
this
point
in
the
cycle,
I'm
also
willing
to
say
well,
we
already
sent
me
accept
breaking
changes
in
the
signatures
post
our
km
and
given
how
much
tweaking
these
guys,
probably
like
they
will
need
it's
just.
You
know
lack
of
attribution
at
this
point
and
that's
fine.
E
A
F
Stuff
Santi
is
that
right
or
or
300
and
3-1,
yes,
only
we're
three-on-three
one
is
only
after
sending
feedback.
We
get
from
customers
that
could
be
causing
them
pain
like
a
unnecessary
warning
or
stuff
like
that,
because
we
got
a
wrong
an
attraction
and
then
4.95.
The
goal
is
to
annotate
everything
else.