Yair Halberstadt
@ashmind If I understand the limitation correctly, it's because jit can run static constructors. What if we allowed this whenever you're also allowed to run it? Alternatively moving to blazor...
Could this also apply to the `??` operator as well?
@gafter I understand, but is there any reason not to do the equavelent for `??`. I would find it extremely useful. Should I open a new proposal for it?
If I were to offer to implement it, would that make a difference?
I have suggested a specification at #2473
> annotations in the Google.Protobuf runtime (=the nuget) - then concern is backward-compatibility of the APIs (you cannot have an "option" for enabling/disabling this so it would need to work...
@ObsidianMinor I think that would be highly undesirable. C# 8.0 introduced nullability as a first class feature, and the amount of work that's been put in is phenomenal (probably more...
@ObsidianMinor I see I misunderstood which attributes you were referring to. My apologies. The C# 8 nullable annotations emit attributes themselves. The coreFX attributes are meant for when the behaviour...
> Using these annotations would allow us to do this in a backwards compatible way. Ah you mean to avoid a switch? That sounds like a decent idea.
@LiamMorrow That is true of every single library. The official line of the C# team is: nullable reference types will be disabled by default till .Net 5. If you enable...