There are a lot of places in the doc comments where it uses the syntax of <c>null</c> rather than <see langword="null"/>, or doesn't do anything and just uses plain text "null". Should these be updated to use the <see langword="null"/> syntax?
As an example, here is what the updated comment (for Requires.NotNull<T>(T, string?) would look like:
|
/// <summary> |
|
/// Throws an exception if the specified parameter's value is null. |
|
/// </summary> |
|
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of the parameter.</typeparam> |
|
/// <param name="value">The value of the argument.</param> |
|
/// <param name="parameterName">The name of the parameter to include in any thrown exception.</param> |
|
/// <returns>The value of the parameter.</returns> |
|
/// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">Thrown if <paramref name="value"/> is <c>null</c>.</exception> |
/// <summary>
/// Throws an exception if the the specified parameter's value is <see langword="null" />.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of the parameter.</typeparam>
/// <param name="value">The value of the argument.</param>
/// <param name="parameterName">The name of the parameter to include in any thrown exception.</param>
/// <returns>The value of the parameter.</returns>
/// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">Thrown if <paramref name="value"/> is <see langword="null" />.</exception>
There are a lot of places in the doc comments where it uses the syntax of
<c>null</c>rather than<see langword="null"/>, or doesn't do anything and just uses plain text "null". Should these be updated to use the<see langword="null"/>syntax?As an example, here is what the updated comment (for
Requires.NotNull<T>(T, string?)would look like:Validation/src/Validation/Requires.cs
Lines 19 to 26 in 2378284