The "null-forgiving" ("!") operator's naming is confusing

[marwalsch]

The is might be treated as a proposal, otherwise any clarification on the intention of this particular name is welcome. Note that this might partially subjective.
When speaking of "null-forgiving", it implies something similar to null is allowed where it would not be otherwise". This is essentially what Nullable<T> and its shorthand equivalent of an appended ? do, fulfilling the exact opposite purpose of !.

Therefore, i think it would be more intuitive to treat ! as a "non-null-assertion"-operator
This would also avoid confusion with an appended ? which considering its purpose has more reason of being named "null-forgiving".

[jnm2]

'Assertion' makes it sound like it is itself a runtime check, which would be misleading since it is not.

I'd rather it had been called a null-oblivious or null-blind operator. The most accurate name for it would be "nullability warning suppression operator."

[marwalsch]

I don't see how any of these would create more confusion considering the current ambiguity of the name.

[yaakov-h]

I liked “the dammit operator” before it got its current name…

[marwalsch]

@yaakov-h As in "damn those compiler warnings"?

[HaloFour]

I don't see how any of these would create more confusion considering the current ambiguity of the name.

You learn the term once and you move on. I don't find it any more confusing than any of many other names assigned to different programming concepts that would be difficult to pin to a single name. This feature shipped two years ago, and the operator has been discussed on these forums for some time before that, and this is the first protest regarding the name that I've seen so I would suggest that the idea that the name is confusing is certainly not universal, nor is it worth revisiting at this point.

[TonyValenti]

How about "Null Clarifying" operator?