Champion "Lambda discard parameters" (VS 16.8, .NET 5)

[gafter]

Examples: (_, _) => 1, (int _, string _) => 1, void local(int _, int _) ...

• Proposal added (https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/csharp-9.0/lambda-discard-parameters.md)
• Discussed in LDM
• Decision in LDM
• Finalized (done, rejected, inactive)
• Spec'ed

See

• Permit discards in lambda parameters roslyn#16255
• LDM 2019/10/28 (restrict feature to lambdas and anonymous methods)

[DavidArno]

Please, please, please could this apply to methods too? Sometimes, the parameters must be there, but just aren't used. By way of example, this Unit type has to have both R# and CA1801 suppressions for the operator overloads:

public static bool operator ==(Unit u1, Unit u2) => true;
public static bool operator !=(Unit u1, Unit u2) => false;

Being able to write those with discards to reassure those checks that the parameters must be there, but aren't used, would clean up such code nicely:

public static bool operator ==(Unit _, Unit _) => true;
public static bool operator !=(Unit _, Unit _) => false;

[jnm2]

@DavidArno I believe the .NET Framework design guidelines have always been to use the names left and right specifically. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229004.aspx

[DavidArno]

@jnm2,

Oh, I didn't know that. I'll give that a try to see if it makes the compiler happier. Would still like to be able to use discards though.

[acple]

this proposal also permit in nested lambda expression _ => _ => true ?

Enumerable.Range(0, 3)
    .SelectMany(_ => Enumerable.Range(0, 3)
        .SelectMany(_ => Enumerable.Range(0, 3))); // i don't need parameters in nested

[gafter]

@acple Possibly not, unless we also do something like dotnet/roslyn#15793 at the same time.

[acple]

@gafter Thank you. in my opinion, lambda parameter shadowing is a bit dangerous but, discarded parameters are safe to overcover. so that should support only with discarded parameters. is this shadowing issue? or discarding issue?

[gafter]

@acple This is a shadowing issue. When there is only one lambda parameter named _, it is a normal identifier that declares a parameter. It must be so for backward compatibility.

[acple]

@gafter okay I understand. desire the identifier definition rules will be relaxed partially... thanks for the information! 😄

[MovGP0]

there should also be a compiler warning/error when using an _ named variable:

items.ForEach(_ => Console.WriteLine(_));

[DavidArno]

@MovGP0,

Unfortunately, that would be a breaking change. An analyzer could be added to this affect though.

[jnm2]

I think use of a single _-named parameter should be encouraged! I don't intend to use it any less.

[DavidArno]

@jnm2,

I disagree. If I was going to use the parameter in the lambda body, then I'd use eg x. I think _ should only be used when the parameter(s) aren't used in the body, ie as discards.

I appreciate that's personal opinion though.

[jnm2]

@DavidArno Exactly, it is personal opinion. My rationale is that I'd like to not have to specify a parameter at all, so until I can do .Where(@.Foo != null) or similar, _ => _.Foo seems to be the nearest I can get to not specifying a parameter name, readability-wise.

[MovGP0]

I disagree that it is a personal opinion, since it is a common convention in functional languages that _ is a 'throwaway' value that is not to be used. It confuses developers who are used to the convention.

Thankfully it is quite simple to give it a proper name.

[gafter]

I disagree that it is a personal opinion...

Oh, the irony.

[jcouv]

I renamed the issue as it is being broadened from lambda parameters to any/all parameters.

Note that we'd like to avoid variables being named _ (underscore), so we're tracking an analyzer or warning (in warning wave) to avoid any ambiguities (dotnet/roslyn#26594).

[jcouv]

From discussion today in LDM, we're going to keep the feature narrow for now (only support it for lambdas and anonymous methods as initially proposed).

[YairHalberstadt]

Can I ask why doing this for all methods is more complicated?

[jcouv]

@YairHalberstadt It's not a question of implementation cost, but trade-off between language complexity and benefit to users. Methods are part of an API (they can be invoked, whereas lambdas can only be converted to delegates, so the parameters names are never accessible to callers).
It is possible that discards would be generalized to methods later on, depending on feedback. More notes will be posted for today's meeting.

[atifaziz]

lambdas can only be converted to delegates, so the parameters names are never accessible to callers

Aren't they available through reflection? I rely on that in a library.

[jnm2]

@jcouv Can local functions be included? They are often converted to delegates.

[DavidArno]

@jcouv,

You raise a good point re methods that I hadn't thought of. Consider the following code example,

public interface I 
{
    public void M(int a, int b);
}

public class C : I
{
    public void M(int _, int _) {}
}

public static class P
{
    private static void Main()
    {
        I i = new C();
        C c = new C();
        
        i.M(a:1, b:1);
        c.M(_:1, _:1);
    }
}

In C, I've used discards for M as I don't use the parameters. This makes sense to me: why name a parameter that isn't used?

But if I'm a developer working in a team that insists on named parameters (not sure if such a team exists, but thinking worst case here), then that line c.M(_:1, _:1); can't compile as I've trying to name those discards.

My motivation for wanting discards in methods (and operators, though I'm just lumping them in with methods here) is for situations such as when defining event handlers, operators and the like. In these situations, I have to specify the parameters to meet the contract. But if I then don't use those parameters, the compiler IDE complains with an IDE0060 message. So I want to use discards there to keep the compiler IDE happy.

But maybe this is the wrong solution to the problem. If a method must have a parameter to meet the contract, but that parameter isn't used, the compiler IDE puts the developer in the impossible situation difficult position of having to ignore that message. So maybe the simpler solution is to just not warn on those unused parameters when they are mandatory?

[Joe4evr]

@DavidArno I think in the case you present, that should likely be a compiler error since C.M is an implicit implementation of I.M and there need to be unambiguous identifiers for the first and second parameter because M is a public API regardless of whether or not C happens to be followed by : I.

But, I think explicit implementations maybe could allow discarded parameters since those methods are only callable through the interface signature. A potential (but perhaps unlikely) addition to that would be to also allow it in method overrides provided that the overriding class is less visible than the base class? Idk, it's obviously quite a complicated scenario.

[HaloFour]

@DavidArno

So maybe the simpler solution is to just not warn on those unused parameters?

I agree, the better approach would seem to have the analyzers not generate diagnostics for unused parameters that are required to meet the contract, such as for implicit implementation of an interface member or for overloaded operators, etc.

In general I'm a little squeamish about extending _ to all parameters. Lambdas and local functions are at least internal implementation details, but public methods are more likely to be walked via reflection and I have concerns over how such parameters would be interpreted by tooling.

[Logerfo]

Including local functions sounds perfect. Even private methods have their reflection concerns.

[louthy]

Will this also work for LINQ (as LINQ gets compiles down to lambdas)? For those of us that use LINQ for more than just querying an enumerating this would be an absolute godsend.

It would reduce the calls for an extension to the LINQ grammar. For example, I'm just working on a new IO monad:

static SIO<Runtime, ConsoleKeyInfo> ShowError(Error err) =>
    from _1 in setColor(Red)
    from _2 in writeLine(err.Message)
    from _3 in writeLine()
    from _4 in writeLine(StackTrace(err))
    from _5 in setColor(White)
    from k in readKey
    select k;

I would prefer to do this:

static SIO<Runtime, ConsoleKeyInfo> ShowError(Error err) =>
    do setColor(Red)
    do writeLine(err.Message)
    do writeLine()
    do writeLine(StackTrace(err))
    do setColor(White)
    from k in readKey
    select k;

But would be fine with just this (as a stopgap until the day that LINQ gets some much needed love):

static SIO<Runtime, ConsoleKeyInfo> ShowError(Error err) =>
    from _ in setColor(Red)
    from _ in writeLine(err.Message)
    from _ in writeLine()
    from _ in writeLine(StackTrace(err))
    from _ in setColor(White)
    from k in readKey
    select k;

[ChaseFlorell]

I asked this question on Twitter, but figured I should bring it over here
https://twitter.com/ChaseFlorell/status/1286159277451653121

Question, for those insane folks who use _ => {} and expect a value from it, is this a breaking change?

Is there a different character you can use that would have otherwise been invalid pre C# 9? . => {} perhaps?

[jnm2]

@ChaseFlorell No, it is not a breaking change. This feature only kicks in when at least two parameters are discarded.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

@jcouv do we have an existing issue covering multiple discards for methods, or multiple discards for locals?

[jcouv]

@CyrusNajmabadi Tracked by #2180

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Thanks!