Expression-bodied property set notation could be further simplified

[IanKemp]

The updated expression-bodied property syntax is great, but in my opinion is still a little clumsy regarding setting values. Currently, for a simple read/write property with no other logic, the property looks like this:

string label;

public string Label
{
    get => label;
    set => label = value;
}

I'm aware this can be accomplished with a standard auto-property, so here's a more realistic example with a delegated property:

class ComplexObject
{
    public string AString { get; set; }
}

ComplexObject delegatedTo = new ComplexObject();

public string Label
{
    get => delegatedTo.AString;
    set => delegatedTo.AString = value;
}

My issue is with the = value part of the statement, which I feel is superfluous because that's what you're going to be writing 99% of the time you're declaring properties in this way. I'd be much happier being able to write:

public string Label
{
    get => delegatedTo.AString;
    set => delegatedTo.AString;
}

[alrz]

With generators you won't even need to type the setter at all,

[BiDirectional]
public string Label => delegateTo.AString;

// to be generated
public replace string Label
{
  get => delegateTo.AString;
  set => delegateTo.AString = value;
}

Or if it's desirable to delegate all members,

[Mixin]
private readonly ComplexObject delegateTo;

And let the generator generate code for member delegation.

[DavidArno]

@alrz,

But will generators ever realistically happen?

@IanKemp,

In my view, having an expression after the setter, which is converted to _field = value by the compiler saves a tiny bit of typing at the expense of readability.

[alrz]

But will generators ever realistically happen?

Nah.

[svick]

How would you deal with the fact that code like the following is already valid?

string field;

ref string Accessor() => ref field;

public string Label
{
    get => Accessor();
    set => Accessor();
}

(Yes, in this specific case, the code has a bug. But there could be cases where similar code is intentional.)

[jjvanzon]

Shorter possible notation:
public string Title { get; set; } => labelTitle.Text;

[bondsbw]

If the nested class can be private:

class ComplexObject
{
    public string AString;
}

ComplexObject delegatedTo = new ComplexObject();
public ref string Label => ref delegatedTo.AString;