Ilya (@iSazonov) I think these changes should wait until we have updated code to use features available in C# 8, such as null operators and pattern matching.

The pattern comes from C# 9.0 and is already enabled.

Ilya (@iSazonov) What is mean is I think we should go for "low-hanging fruit" such as using null conditional access from C# 6.0 (RCS1146) etc before making C# 9.0 changes.

Ilya (@iSazonov) I have started work on related changes in #13286.

Build failures seem to be because preview features not enabled in xUnit.tests.

https://dev.azure.com/powershell/PowerShell/_build/results?buildId=58427&view=logs&j=ce47e5d9-6379-5300-b411-5c447691f9de&t=2718afa2-89c3-5dee-4660-3339d525f0c9&l=37

csharp/test_PSConfiguration.cs(100,47): error CS8652: The feature 'not pattern' is currently in Preview and *unsupported*. To use Preview features, use the 'preview' language version. [/Users/runner/work/1/s/test/xUnit/xUnit.tests.csproj]

You can exclude xUnit files from the PR or enable C# 9.0 in the csproj.

Ilya (@iSazonov) If you would like, you can start to review, as we are not isolating C# 9.0 changes. This is already a huge PR so it seems to be the best plan. Any more changes can be in follow-up PR.

Macos failures look like Test-Connection DNS issues related to #12935.

xtqqczze Please rebase to pass CIs.

Ilya (@iSazonov) Too many merge conflicts, I will push new commits rather then resolving.

First rebase on 1f904e4

Second rebase fixes up.

xtqqczze thanks for your efforts in cleaning up the code, but I don't think the is not language feature is for replacing != null. There is nothing wrong using != null. So I don't think we can merge this PR.

Dongbo Wang (@daxian-dbw) This change was actually requested by Ilya (@iSazonov) (#13090 (comment)). Are you against is not generally or just a huge change like this PR?

Dongbo Wang (@daxian-dbw) What do you mean? The pattern "is not null" is for replacement !(x is not null) dotnet/roslyn#42368

Quote from dotnet/roslyn#42368:

Add feature to convert from !(x is null) to x is not null

Ilya (@iSazonov) That conversion makes sense. But most changes in this PR are converting x != null to x is not null, which is not what is suggested. Unlike !(x is null), x != null is explicit and clear, it's conventional and there is no readability issue about it.

Even the !(x is null) is pretty contrived. IMO, is not feature is for cases where we currently use !(x is <a-type-name>).

Dongbo Wang (@daxian-dbw) it's worth noting that == and != operators can both (potentially) be overridden by a type with an implementation that returns unexpected results for a comparison with null; x is not null avoids this possibility.

Rain Sallow (/u/ta11ow) (@vexx32) Yes, there is such possibility, but I don't think it's practically a problem we need to concern about.

Just to say that if x is a value type, x != null could result in undefined behaviour (see #13285 for examples). x is not null will result in a compiler error instead .

xtqqczze I agree that for value types, x != null can actually be considered a bug. I will review #13285 shortly.

Given that #13277 is reverted, I will close this PR as well. The idea is the same as in #13277 (comment), that we shouldn't force is not null over != null -- neither should be universally preferred; they are appropriate in different scenarios.

Dongbo Wang (@daxian-dbw) I have made !(x is <a-type-name>) changes in #13323

I think we should re-review this again since .Net team added new Roslyn analyzer to force using new syntax "is null" and "is not".

I think we should re-review this again since .Net team added new Roslyn analyzer to force using new syntax "is null" and "is not".

Yep, see dotnet/runtime#42692

We should wait until #13333 and #13338 are merged to avoid conflicts.