Neal Gafter

This could also affect async iterator methods. We could consider checking VB for alignment.

I wonder if this would still be needed if we did type classes (shapes) See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/110 and https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/164

The C# LDM considers it an important feature of the language that every place the language infers a type, you can also explicitly give one. This proposal does not include...

> @gafter for the explicit type argument would it be possible to simply allow invoking the method via ClassName.op_Addition(..., ...)? "*Simply*"? Um, That would require a breaking change to name...

If invoking something called `op_Addition` would invoke something declared `operator +`, then the program at https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LglgNgNAJiDUAfAAgJgAQEECwAoA3nusesgMykCMAbFugPYAOA+pjDGMGPQHYA8AFQB8ACkzoAhpSh0JqAJToAvEMmUA3HgC+ePGnQAhEFjyFcJUhWQ1DDRgFMAThOD1H8EQbUyvcxSrVNXB1cPQxrAHZTIhI0VBjiMwsLLwAjZXQeAFcICCDkkgMAOiZWdk5ufjAeYFFUmVT5fJIQkKA= would change behavior.

Confirming @alrz 's response, If `e` is of type `Task`, then `await? e;` would do nothing if `e` is `null`, and await `e` if it is not `null`. If `e`...

@ljw1004 But isn't your proposal an incompatible change? What if someone has come to depend on the code throwing a `NullReferenceException`? ``

@ljw1004 I think there is a compatibility issue with your proposal. If we add the feature that `await` automatically does the null check (whether or not that depends on the...

@TylerBrinkley I don't see what aspect of the proposed API would benefit from this.

I snuck this into the 7.x milestone to force the LDM to triage this next week.