Discussion Thread: DIP 1043--Shortened Method Syntax--Community Review Round 1

[bauss]

On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 10:53:45 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> ## Discussion Thread
>
> This is the discussion thread for the first round of Community
> Review of DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax":
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/5a3b437f2b6be8fb23e855fc0da20f19f68edac8/DIPs/DIP1043.md
>
> The review period will **end at 11:59 PM ET on February 18**, or
> when I make a post declaring it complete. Discussion in this
> thread may continue beyond that point.
>
> Here in the discussion thread, you are free to discuss anything
> and everything related to the DIP. Express your support or
> opposition, debate alternatives, argue the merits, etc.
>
> However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the
> proposal itself, then please post it in the Feedback Thread. The
> Feedback Thread will be the source for the review summary that I
> will write at the end of this review round. I will post a link 
> to
> that thread immediately following this post. Just be sure to 
> read
> and understand the Reviewer Guidelines before posting there:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md
>
> And my blog post on the difference between the Discussion and
> Feedback threads:
>
> https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/
>
> Please stay on topic here. I will delete posts that are 
> completely off-topic.

 From the DIP itself it wasn't clear to me whether it would only 
support expressions that returns a value or not, because to me it 
should also support expressions that don't necessarily yield a 
value.

So both these would be valid:

```d
void foo() { ... }
void bar() => foo(); // This

private int _value;
void baz(int value) => _value = value; // And this
int baz() => _value;
```

If it's supported then I'm all for this, but if not then I think 
it's only a half-baked implementation.