[Version 9.0] Feature support for unconstrained type parameter annotations#1470
[Version 9.0] Feature support for unconstrained type parameter annotations#1470BillWagner wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
|
I can't add a suggestion here yet, but this text needs to be removed from types.md:
It's being proposed in #1575. It's no longer correct for v9. |
1fbcb02 to
30b3684
Compare
…- 2 new commits Delta: 2 commits (b37dedc Update classes.md, 30b3684 Review and update text) Base: d68b04d (draft-v9 merge commit) / Original: 4e5e0a6 (alpha-v9) Conflicts resolved: 2 in classes.md - Conflict 1: Kept 'do not' wording (contractions already expanded on alpha-v9) - Conflict 2: Merged covariant return type bullets (PR #1462) with new default constraint support (PR #1470)
30b3684 to
995251f
Compare
- Act on existing TODO markers
Remove the restriction in classes.md: "The nullable type annotation, ?, can only be used on a type parameter that has the value type constraint, the reference type constraint without the nullable_type_annotation, or a class type constraint without the nullable_type_annotation."
Replace it with the C# 9 rule from the feature spec: unless a type parameter is explicitly constrained to value types, ? annotations can only be applied within a #nullable enable context.
Uncomment and integrate classes.md: "For a type parameter T when the type argument is a nullable reference type C?, instances of T? are interpreted as C?, not C??." (currently inside a <!-- Add in C# 9 --> comment).
— Override/explicit implementation constraint list
In classes.md, the text says: "Such declarations may only have type_parameter_constraints_clauses containing the primary_constraints class and struct…"
Add default to this list (e.g., "…the primary_constraints class, struct, and default…") and reference the new §15.6.5 and §19.6.2 meaning.
— Override method T? interpretation rules
In classes.md, the current rule only covers class and struct constraints and describes how T? is interpreted in overriding signatures. Update to add the default case:
If a default constraint is added for type parameter T, then T? represents the annotated type — a nullable reference type when T is a reference type, or just T when T is a value type (matching the feature spec behavior; no U??).
Consider adding an example analogous to the feature spec's A2/B2 example showing where T : default on an override of an unconstrained method.
— Explicit interface implementation T? interpretation rules
In interfaces.md, same situation as §15.6.5: update to add the default constraint case and its T? interpretation.
The text ("Without the type parameter constraint where T : class, the base method with the reference-typed type parameter cannot be overridden.") should be updated or supplemented with an example using where T : default for an unconstrained interface method.
995251f to
aa52bc5
Compare
|
An earlier version of this feature is already present on |
Found a few nits, and a couple places where the old restriction that is removed by this feature were still referenced.
|
@jskeet If there is time after other agenda items, this is close and could use comments from other committee members. |
|
Yup, I strongly suspect we'll have plenty of time. |
|
Aim is get approval (or lack thereof) of general shape and first draft comments, so @BillWagner can make changes ready for a second round of review before the next meeting. Added all team members to review. |
Found based on #1470 and #1471 In our 7/22 meeting, we merged updated features for both C# 8 and C# 9. The tools did the correct work, but made all commits on one branch. So, both of these PRs picked up changes from the v8 and v9 PRs. This change instructs the workflow to create the pull request branch name based on the base branch version it started with. Doing that means it will not accidentically cross versions when the automation runs.
This PR replaces #1326