Richard Gibson

> @HaloFour > > I think if this could be neatly packaged with records in a way that they felt like one unified feature, I might agree with you. At...

> I really don't see the benefit for this. It lowers readability, and adds complexity. > > If a class constructor gets more than 3,4 parameters you will usually want...

> @Richiban the syntaxes proposed for these two features are the same: > > ```cs > class Name(string value) {} > ``` > > so if you use this syntax...

@mcosmin222 > This feature is just too prone to abuse. I agree writing boilerplate is annoying and ides are not ideal, but this is just a recipe for abuse and...

@HaloFour > I agree, and this is exactly how Scala does it. In normal classes the primary constructor only buys you the constructor parameters being in scope for the entire...

@yusuf-gunaydin Unfortunately I think the code generation idea is not really going anywhere. I also think that these situations are common enough to warrant their own language feature. As evidence,...

@yusuf-gunaydin > By the way, I am not against the primary constructor concept itself. But, inventing a new, unnatural, and limited syntax should not be the way. It's not unnatural....

I think this is probably a feature best left for ADTs. Sure, methods could be added to enums but once C# has types such as discriminated unions (which can have...

I'm not really sure why you would ever want XML docs on local methods... since they're normally used for documenting the public API of your library and local methods are,...

I know it seems that the line is very thin between private and local methods but it's the same as the difference between fields/properties and local variables, isn't it? ......