Joseph Musser

@alrz Always checking for null is no worse than what every `using` statement does today. It seems like the most natural thing in the world to me.

@gafter Just brainstorming. To solve the old compiler problem, it could be useful to plan to add the capacity to opt in to new compiler behaviors in the csproj SDK...

Ditto.

@NVentimiglia Why again aren't you doing `MyEnum a = (MyEnum)value` and `int a = (int)value`?

(Canon and cannon have different meanings.)

1 is okay but verbose. I prefer 2 because I would like this potential progression in levels of needed disambiguation for `Foo`, assuming `Foo` or `Foo` also existing or not...

@qrli [Say what?](https://sharplab.io/#v2:CYLg1APgAgzABFATHAwgWAFAG9Nzw+KAFjgFkAKASl3xw3wbgH04BeOAFwE8AHAUwD2AM3JQAjEQB0ASQAiASwDGHeQIB2AQwBOXADziADABoAfNXr4AvpktA===) `Type` objects cannot have partially-open generics.

@federicoce-moravia I don't believe either is possible. Can you show me? Btw, closing over `string, TValue` is still 100% closed, not partially closed. There is an important difference between an...

@HaloFour That's `typeof(Dictionary)` which is completely closed over those two types. [For example.](https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LgTgrgdgNAJiA1AHwAIAYAEqCMBuAWAChjUBmbHANmwCZKB2Ygb2IEhzKbUAWSgDgAUASmKZxmVkQkzMUAKYB3TADEA9moA8udDEwBLKMAB8IgHQBZEYWkSAvsQckinVPXVaAKgGl5ATz1PADUAQwAbCHljFjEJVz4rUVtxKRkOHABOQWA/AAd5NQAzQQ9NGGNhTABeKswc/KKSjU0ff0DQiKjhYRsZJzsgA==)

@HaloFour I understand that it inexpressible in C#. Here's the dillema: it is fully constructed to close over `typeof(Foo)`. Why should it not also be fully constructed closing over `typeof(Foo)`...