[Metasyntactic]

> Cute, but is this actually needed? It's one more thing to remember, one more thing to know the subtleties of, and for what?

Hi there! C# language designer here :-)

In this case, it's more that this feature made the language more uniform. We've had `?.` for more than 10 years now, and it worked properly for most expressions except assignment.

During that time we got a large amount of feedback from users asking for this, and we commonly ran into it ourselves. At a language and impl level, these were both very easy to add in, so this was a low cost Qol feature that just made things nicer and more consistent.

> It feels like the C# designers have a hard time saying "no" to ideas coming their way.

We say no to more than 99% of requests.

> We're trading brevity for complexity

There's no new keyword here. And this makes usage and processing of `?.` more uniform and consistent. Imo, that is a good thing. You have less complexity that way.

[klysm]

Thank you for all the hard work on C#! I’ve been loving the past 5 years of developments and don’t agree with the parent comment here.

p.s. I will take the opportunity to say that I dream of the day when C# gets bounded sum types with compiler enforced exhaustive pattern matching. It feels like we are soooo close with records and switch expression, but just missing one or two pieces to make it work.

[Metasyntactic]

Thanks @klysm! I think we're getting close to that. `unions` are a big part of this discussion, and we're working very hard to hopefully get them in soon :)

[klysm]

I can’t wait! I’ll be frothing at the mouth when that lands

[maltalex]

Thanks for the reply and for your work on C#.

I should have been clearer in my message. This specific feature is nice, and the semantics are straightforward. My message is more about some the myriad of other language features with questionable benefits. There's simply more and more "stuff" in the language and a growing number of ways to write the same logic but often with subtle semantic differences between each variant. There are just too many different, often overlapping, concepts. The number of keywords is a symptom of that.