Shorthand syntax for Nullable of T, like T? in C#.

For generic structs, the '?' should come before the generic parameters as in:

x = test? of int
x = tester?[of test? of int, char]

Otherwise the following code becomes ambiguous (possibilities in comments):

x = test of int?
// x = test[of int?]
// x = test[of int]?

   x = test of int?

should always means:

   x = test[of int?]

Disambiguation should be done through [] as in:

    x = test[of int]?

Would you then prefer the '?' to be after generic parameters rather than before?

x = test? of int
x = test[of int]?

Since we have discussed about removing syntax without brackets for 0.9 (constraints...) the choices are clearer :

1) x = test?[of int]

or

2) x = test[of int]?

I also have a preference for (1) since imho "nested nullables" looks clearer with it, compare :

(1) x = test?[of int?]

against

(2) x = test[of int?]?

Marcus I'm willing to work on this soon along with BOO-805 / BOO-807 , so would you mind reassigning the task to myself?

I would not have a problem with you taking a couple issues. I haven't gotten around to this one, so its better to get this one rolling.

For consistency, the '?' should always come after the type reference.

x = test[of int?]?

Good point!
Consistency with C# syntax is not bad either.

Well, let's go for this syntax then.

fixed in rev. 2897

some antl-fu is needed to re-enable ID_PREFIX '?' for brail users.