Fred Silberberg

Implicit operators already exist. They do not suffice because they do not participate in the pieces that I outlined in the proposal.

These changes require a deep understanding of the relationship between the array type and a type parameter; I don't really see a generalizable mechanism that wouldn't be massively overcomplicated for...

> Would you allow an extension method invocation to combine an implicit span conversion with an identity conversion? No, that is not intended by this proposal.

> When I look at the linked API proposal, I don't see any duplication. Because they're counting on this proposal to come in and not force them to duplicate :slightly_smiling_face:....

The LDM has approved the proposed specification for implementation. The issue is in the Any Time milestone, which means that it is approved for community implementation if anyone wants to...

We explicitly (no pun intended) excluded that when we did not make a collection expression conversion a standard implicit conversion.

> I'll have to look and see how you guys actually end up using this. We basically always realize it to a flattened array when we actually go to access...

This was discussed in LDM on https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2023/LDM-2023-10-09.md#is-expression-evaluating-const-expression-should-be-considered-constant. It was approved for any time, meaning that it is open for community contribution. The first thing this needs is an approved specification:...

> I believe we should also support tuple pattern matching expressions of the form (x, y) is (a, b), when x and y are also constants. I don't think I'm...

This doesn't seem like it should compile. The type of `default` should be inferred to be the element type.