[Lukassus]

I think this has to do with types. In what you propose the returned type for primitive types (int, ...) would always be `Nullable<T>` and you would have to cast them to get the type `T`.

In many cases you can guarantee that the sub-property is not null and you can safely access the value. I think the proposed operator `.?` is the perfect solution and gives you the flexibility to decide what you can guarantee and how you want to access the sub-property.

[mhomde]

I don't think you should involve nullables ,the compiler would simply rewrite to check if link in the chain is null and then assign to null.

But value types are a good point, either it could then set it to default(T) or not set it at all, but it kinda has to be default(T) because null makes most sense for reference types. Might give some unexpected behavior if it variables are set to 0 because of a null reference