Extending the null-coalescing operator

[ActivistInvestor]

There may be good reasons why this may not be feasible, but I would find it helpful if the null-coalescing operator were extensible.

So for example, Instead of

int x = y != null ? 1 : 0;

it could use ?? thusly:

int x = y ?? 1 : 0;

What that effectively means is that y ?? is shorthand for y != null, and where the result and right-side operand of ?? is inferred by the context and/or the types on the right side.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

this becomes heavily syntactically ambiguous. For example, this is already legal today: a ? b ?? 1 : 0 Now the latter would become part of the ?? and you'd have different meaning between that and a ? b ?? 1 : 0 : -1. Not a good space syntactically.

[ActivistInvestor]

I suppose it depends on operator precedence, and I realized there could be ambiguity within nested operations, and that's why I asked about it.