External API review flagged that several signatures render in the generated docs as nonsense like:
- `double left = null`
- `int selectedIndex = null`
- `CancellationToken cancellationToken = null`
(seen at `omd.html:107, 590, 12287`)
Value types can't be `= null`, so the compiled signatures are presumably `double? left = null` / `int? selectedIndex = null` / `CancellationToken cancellationToken = default`, but the doc generator is dropping the `?` and/or rewriting `default` to `null`.
If that output is what consumers see, it undermines trust in the API even when the compiled signatures are correct. This looks like a doc-generator (omd.html) bug, not an API surface bug — but worth tracking.
Proposed fix: preserve `?` annotations on value-type parameters and render `= default` (or the actual default expression) faithfully in the generated doc HTML.
Source: external API consistency review, 2026-05.
External API review flagged that several signatures render in the generated docs as nonsense like:
(seen at `omd.html:107, 590, 12287`)
Value types can't be `= null`, so the compiled signatures are presumably `double? left = null` / `int? selectedIndex = null` / `CancellationToken cancellationToken = default`, but the doc generator is dropping the `?` and/or rewriting `default` to `null`.
If that output is what consumers see, it undermines trust in the API even when the compiled signatures are correct. This looks like a doc-generator (omd.html) bug, not an API surface bug — but worth tracking.
Proposed fix: preserve `?` annotations on value-type parameters and render `= default` (or the actual default expression) faithfully in the generated doc HTML.
Source: external API consistency review, 2026-05.