3 ms·
That's a veery long name for such a decorative feature. I'd preferred something less verbose - this is just bloat. The nameof() is not that bad and does not blo
by polskibus 5y ago
That's a veery long name for such a decorative feature. I'd preferred something less verbose - this is just bloat. The nameof() is not that bad and does not bloat function signature.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ygra 5y ago1. You're probably not using this on every other method, and the name is consistent with other features in the same vein (CallerMemberNameAttribute, etc.). 2. Something like nameof wouldn't really work here as the idea is to re-use both evaluation of an expression _and_ the textual form. nameof doesn't evaluate its argument. So a similar solution would require you to write your expression twice.
- LadyCailin 5y ago`expressionfor(argument)` for instance doesn’t require modifying the signature manually, and should work similarly to nameof(argument).