David P. Baker

I wouldn't say `UC!` and `UC!` are _identical_, but maybe that there are few if any functional differences between them. I still would expect those two types not to be...

> * `@Nullable __` is a union type between `__` and the null type. (Java has never had union types before, but they are not complex; something has type A|B...

> `@Nullable __` is still a supertype of `__`, which we do state in current docs, but now it's just the direct consequence of being a union type. Hmm. I...

> FYI, `Comparator

> (The "soft" requirement for subtyping is that `Sub` ought to have some additional interesting operation or characteristic that `Super` doesn't; that's beside the point here but I didn't want...

I'm happy with the main idea, but I'm not sure how that would manifest in changes to the Javadoc or other docs. Maybe prepare a PR?

I like this proposal generally. I'm a little worried about leaving out the `!` for value types. Right now the primitive types are well known and spelled differently by convention...

I think we should consider specifications separately from tool outputs. I think specifications, including these design discussions and conformance tests, should always prefer the most unambiguous terms, including `int!`. On...

I don't think the reference checker has to be concise in its error messages. I do think it would be good if the reference checker's output matched what we do...

Would it be okay for our documentation to describe the two notation schemes and to say that some tools, in some contexts, may use one or the other scheme, but...