Ryan Price

There are good reasons why object-oriented languages have keywords for things like GETting and SETting properties. Even C# doesn't allow properties without get/set. I don't think removing those keywords *enhances*...

If I were to advocate for a change around property declarations, I'd vote for making the ReadOnly and WriteOnly modifiers optional (or inferred) - if there is no Set declared,...

> So, VB lakes the equivalent of `=>` in C#. This is reasonable observation, one that has been made elsewhere in this repo. There is a whole issue related to...

> > It doesn't mean that it's a problem with the language. > > Surely it is. The language made fatal decision that forced us to use a another language,...

> I aim to 2 things here: > > 1. Keep the spirit of VB syntax: Nearest to natural language and shortest as possible. I don't think 'shortest as possible'...

> I always wonder why we need an auto implemented propery with no body, while we can use a public field directly? > I asked this 15 years ago, and...

> > > These guidelines can be interpreted in different ways. Most new vb features since 2005 are consedered alternative ways to already existing syntax. Possibly, but they're not usually...

> You can do this now in VB16, the formatting is just not pretty. > > ```vbnet > services.AddControllersWithViews(). > _ ' Enable Vazor > AddRazorRuntimeCompilation( > Sub(options) options.FileProviders.Add( >...

I like this idea. Although I'd only want to see that 'documentation' while the variables are 'in scope' for the code you're working on. In which case, it's probably something...

And so it seems to me that with the comment left by @KathleenDollard recently over at [Add VB.NET Support to .Net Core 3 WPF/Windows Forms Projects](https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/idea/750543/add-visual-basic-support-to-net-core-3-wpfwindows.html?childToView=1073685#comment-1073685), there is tacit consent...