<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Since type-use annotations are rejected on var local variables, I would have expected them to be rejected on var lambda parameters, too.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That position fits with the idea that, when we use var, we're expecting the full type to be inferred.</div><div><br></div><div>In contrast, if it *were* possible to put annotations on var, there would be ambiguity about what the *absence* of an annotation means: Does it mean "Please infer whether an annotation should be present on the inferred type," or does it mean "Behave as if no annotation is present on the inferred type?"</div><div><br></div><div>The conservative approach for developers would be to annotate *every* var declaration. But, in addition to being verbose, that approach is possible for our nullness work only if every type is either nullable or non-null—and that's not the case, since a type-variable usage T has a nullness that will depend on the type argument.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div>