Fred Silberberg

> leandromoh > > > I would expect I could define a default implementation for static members > > That is mentioned under "Default implementations" and I think describes the...

> Just as some clarification since the opening motivational example was mostly based on operators: Will this allow interface declarations like the following? As proposed, yes, you could define those...

Discussed in [LDM](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2022/LDM-2022-08-10.md). We accept the following rules: When chaining to a constructor that does not have SetsRequiredMembersAttribute, all required members have a null state of default(T), including those required...

Some thoughts: 1. Backwards analysis like this proposes isn't feasible. We need to know when `IsA` is called to update the info for `AsA()`. 2. Forwards analysis required us to...

> It feels like the attribute can be placed on either one of the two symbols involved. We control the internal symbol model, so we can always set things up...

@IllidanS4 brings up a key concern with this proposal, that `where T : ref struct` is very specifically _not_ a constraint. It is, in fact, a loosening, allowing more types...

Excellent questions, and ones we need to design and answer 🙂

> why not closed by default, and open as suggested syntax to open them? Because open is the default today, and we can't change that.

That's exactly correct, and we actually brought up the `|` operator in the meeting when talking about this.

> VincentH-Net That's more of a tooling question, and not *entirely* relevant when the feature isn't even worked on yet. While IntelliSense behavior can be taken into account with features,...