Skip to content

nullable-enhanced-common-type.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
74 lines (53 loc) · 4.44 KB

nullable-enhanced-common-type.md

File metadata and controls

74 lines (53 loc) · 4.44 KB

Nullable-Enhanced Common Type

  • Proposed
  • Prototype: None
  • Implementation: None
  • Specification: See below

Summary

There is a situation in which the current common-type algorithm results are counter-intuitive, and results in the programmer adding what feels like a redundant cast to the code. With this change, an expression such as condition ? 1 : null would result in a value of type int?, and an expression such as condition ? x : 1.0 where x is of type int? would result in a value of type double?.

Motivation

This is a common cause of what feels to the programmer like needless boilerplate code.

Detailed design

We modify the specification for finding the best common type of a set of expressions to affect the following situations:

  • If one expression is of a non-nullable value type T and the other is a null literal, the result is of type T?.
  • If one expression is of a nullable value type T? and the other is of a value type U, and there is an implicit conversion from T to U, then the result is of type U?.

This is expected to affect the following aspects of the language:

More precisely, we change the following sections of the specification (insertions in bold, deletions in strikethrough):

Output type inferences

An output type inference is made from an expression E to a type T in the following way:

  • If E is an anonymous function with inferred return type U (Inferred return type) and T is a delegate type or expression tree type with return type Tb, then a lower-bound inference (Lower-bound inferences) is made from U to Tb.
  • Otherwise, if E is a method group and T is a delegate type or expression tree type with parameter types T1...Tk and return type Tb, and overload resolution of E with the types T1...Tk yields a single method with return type U, then a lower-bound inference is made from U to Tb.
  • **Otherwise, if E is an expression with nullable value type U?, then a lower-bound inference is made from U to T and a null bound is added to T. **
  • Otherwise, if E is an expression with type U, then a lower-bound inference is made from U to T.
  • Otherwise, if E is a constant expression with value null, then a null bound is added to T
  • Otherwise, no inferences are made.

Fixing

An unfixed type variable Xi with a set of bounds is fixed as follows:

  • The set of candidate types Uj starts out as the set of all types in the set of bounds for Xi.
  • We then examine each bound for Xi in turn: For each exact bound U of Xi all types Uj which are not identical to U are removed from the candidate set. For each lower bound U of Xi all types Uj to which there is not an implicit conversion from U are removed from the candidate set. For each upper bound U of Xi all types Uj from which there is not an implicit conversion to U are removed from the candidate set.
  • If among the remaining candidate types Uj there is a unique type V from which there is an implicit conversion to all the other candidate types, then Xi is fixed to V.
    • If V is a value type and there is a null bound for Xi, then Xi is fixed to V?
    • Otherwise Xi is fixed to V
  • Otherwise, type inference fails.

Drawbacks

There may be some incompatibilities introduced by this proposal.

Alternatives

None.

Unresolved questions

  • What is the severity of incompatibility introduced by this proposal, if any, and how can it be moderated?

Design meetings

None.