On 09/05/2019 13:35, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
yes, it's verbose by design.
I object to this a bit.
There will be cases where using nullable projection will be _the only_
way to solve certain problems (e.g. to build value types that can
reference to themselves). Forcing an heavy syntax on these cases seems
punitive. You seem to assume that, once we have specialized generics,
people will just use them and forget about nullable projections. I don't
think that's the case, and some internal discussions we started (e.g. to
sprinkle values on HashMap implementation) seem to point in that
direction too.
Maurizio
