Sam

I strongly dislike the idea that a C# source file will suddenly behave differently based on what compiler options are specified (save `checked`/`unchecked`). It's already the case that examples of...

I think proposals benefit from having a section of various examples. Most people can't look at grammar rules and get a good feel for what the syntax will actually look...

> > I think proposals benefit from having a section of various examples > > It will look like: `[a, b, .. c, d]` Not sure if you're being cheeky...

If this were pre-C#-7.0 I would think this was a great idea. Post-C#-7.0 I don't see any point of putting development work into anonymous types. Tuples are better in nearly...

Seems like a ton of new syntax to make the rare occasions you need to do something like this marginally more terse (and possibly unclear to the 99.9% of C#...

While typing less is nice and marginally beneficial- code is read far more times than it is written. And there is no doubt that this makes the code more confusing...

- This proposal seems completely incompatible with the current record proposal. And I disagree with the statement in the proposal saying this is more widely useful than records. I think...

I've never understood why the C# design team has not considered the syntax TypeScript adopted, where the field is initialized and declared all in the parameter list. ``` C# class...

> > I've never understood why the C# design team has not considered the syntax TypeScript adopted > > It has been considered. > > > where the field is...

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly this would feel very weird when used with expression-bodied members. ``` C# class A { int Foo() => 5; //Expression int Foo2() => {...