David P. Baker

It seems like @wmdietl's concern is based on the fact that our proposed notation occurs after (to the right of) the base type, while annotations occur before (left of). I'm...

I'd also be concerned about the verbosity of spelling out annotations, as well as the fact that most code (eventually) would omit `@NonNull`, so the actual syntax would not match...

> I think I could go for that. It's a _little_ weird not to have the `!` at the very end, given that it comes at the end for not...

I had thought that `@Implies` as described in #35 would not be allowed to specify an annotation class that had any parameters.

What @hagbard said. I'm going to close this issue as a housekeeping measure.

I've edited the summary to refer to the fact that we could document Flogger's status better, and reopened it. Thanks!

For more discussion of integration boundaries and interaction with things like tracing and cloud logging, I suggest you start a conversation on the [mailing list](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/flogger-discuss).

Yeah, but https://github.com/jspecify/nullness-checker-for-checker-framework/pull/35 will address those issues for our build.

> Would it be fair to say that it addresses the need to hardcode a path to the JSpecify jar but not the need to hardcode a JSpecify version number?...

I think for development of the reference checker, where it depends on the local sibling directory with jspecify, we might not even need an explicit version number at all. I'll...