@asdf said in Never say never!:
@DoctorJones
And that, kids, is why distinguishing nullable references from non-nullable ones in the type system is a good thing.
I don't see how that would actually affect this. If I understand the code correctly it's attempting to retrieve the member from a service of some kind. Which means that you would have to always have a nullable reference returned from that method, since you could be attempting to retrieve an object that isn't there. The only reason I assume the code says that it should never happen is that the author of the code either assumed that nothing would remove the member between calls, or was assuming some sort of transactional guarantee that is no longer true.