Skip to content

[Version 9.0] Feature support for unconstrained type parameter annotations#1470

Draft
BillWagner wants to merge 3 commits into
draft-v9from
v9-unconstrainted-type-parameter
Draft

[Version 9.0] Feature support for unconstrained type parameter annotations#1470
BillWagner wants to merge 3 commits into
draft-v9from
v9-unconstrainted-type-parameter

Conversation

@BillWagner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR replaces #1326

@RexJaeschke RexJaeschke added this to the C# 9.0 milestone Nov 12, 2025
@RexJaeschke RexJaeschke added type: feature This issue describes a new feature Review: pending Proposal is available for review labels Nov 12, 2025
@BillWagner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I can't add a suggestion here yet, but this text needs to be removed from types.md:

  • Nullable annotations (?) aren't allowed on an instance of a type parameter unless that type parameter is constrained to be either a reference type or a value type.

It's being proposed in #1575. It's no longer correct for v9.

@BillWagner BillWagner added the meeting: discuss This issue should be discussed at the next TC49-TG2 meeting label Feb 17, 2026
@BillWagner BillWagner self-assigned this Feb 17, 2026
@BillWagner BillWagner removed the meeting: discuss This issue should be discussed at the next TC49-TG2 meeting label Mar 11, 2026
@BillWagner
BillWagner force-pushed the v9-unconstrainted-type-parameter branch from 1fbcb02 to 30b3684 Compare April 10, 2026 21:56
BillWagner added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2026
…- 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)
@BillWagner
BillWagner force-pushed the v9-unconstrainted-type-parameter branch from 30b3684 to 995251f Compare May 12, 2026 22:01
RexJaeschke and others added 2 commits June 24, 2026 13:35
- 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.
@BillWagner
BillWagner force-pushed the v9-unconstrainted-type-parameter branch from 995251f to aa52bc5 Compare June 24, 2026 17:36
@BillWagner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

An earlier version of this feature is already present on alpha-v9 from a prior meeting. Edits made to this PR since then are not yet on alpha-v9; they will land at the next propagation. If you need them on alpha-v9 sooner, please open a separate PR targeting alpha-v9.
Thanks!

Found a few nits, and a couple places where the old restriction that is removed by this feature were still referenced.
@BillWagner BillWagner added the meeting: discuss This issue should be discussed at the next TC49-TG2 meeting label Jul 16, 2026
@BillWagner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@jskeet If there is time after other agenda items, this is close and could use comments from other committee members.

@jskeet

jskeet commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yup, I strongly suspect we'll have plenty of time.

@jskeet
jskeet requested a review from a team July 22, 2026 19:59
@jskeet

jskeet commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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.

BillWagner added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2026
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.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

meeting: discuss This issue should be discussed at the next TC49-TG2 meeting Review: pending Proposal is available for review type: feature This issue describes a new feature

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants