Proposal: Override return in function calls

[TheUnlocked]

These might be existing extension functions to make code cleaner:

public static Foo BarExt(this Foo obj){
     obj.Bar();
     return obj;
}
public static Foo BazExt(this Foo obj){
     obj.Baz();
     return obj;
}
public static Foo WompExt(this Foo obj){
     obj.Womp();
     return obj;
}

Which allows one to write:

Pow(obj.BarExt().BazExt().WompExt());

Instead of

obj.Bar();
obj.Baz();
obj.Womp();
Pow(obj);

Making all of those extensions is really annoying though, and it can also be somewhat misleading. Typically, a function that returns a modified version of the this object will return a new instance of the object, whereas those extension functions just modify it. It's not necessarily intuitive and it may require a lot of repetitive code, either in the extensions or in the call. There should be a better way.

So here is my proposed method of making one-line code in an understandable way:

Pow(obj.Bar(return obj).Baz(return obj).Womp(return obj));

By using the return keyword at the end of a function call, it would ignore the return value of the function (including void), and that call would instead return whatever object was put in that call.

An alternative to return could be returns, though that isn't an existing keyword so I don't know if that would cause any issues. The returns keyword shouldn't cause issues with back-compatibility, though maybe I'm missing something there.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Here is mine:

obj.Bar(); obj.Baz(); obj.Womp(); Pow(obj); // vs
Pow(obj.Bar(return obj).Baz(return obj).Womp(return obj));

So here is my proposed method of making one-line code in an understandable way:

There's already a way to make things one line. And it has the virtue of being even shorter, even simpler, even more understandable, and can be done today without any language changes :)

[TheUnlocked]

It is one line, but it's not one statement, and that can matter.
Imagine this scenario:

if (obj.Bar(return obj).Equals(obj2))
     obj2 = obj.Baz(return obj).Womp(return obj).Quack(obj2);
// vs
obj.Bar();
if (obj.Equals(obj2)) {
     obj.Baz(); obj.Womp();
     obj2 = obj.Quack(obj2);
}

[CyrusNajmabadi]

I don't see anything wrong with teh second form :)

If you have long and complex functionality you want to encapsulate as an expression, then extracting an extension, or making a local function, seems like it would do nicely to solve the problem.

[HaloFour]

Personally I don't understand the desire to turn everything into a single-line expression.

Putting that aside, I also don't follow the suggested syntax. Where exactly is this "return override" supposed to appear within the parameter list when the method actually accepts parameters, especially params parameters? It also appears to be an expression form of the return statement, which clashes syntactically with return expressions which achieve something else entirely.

[TheUnlocked]

If return is already planning on being used, the alternative returns could be used instead.

As for where it appears, it wouldn't actually be in the parameter list. Here's an example:

public int Foo(string s, params int[] nums){
     int val = 0;
     // Something
     return val;
}

int q = Foo("Test", x, 5, 2, 12, 555, returns x);

[kameko]

Isn't this basically in/out?

I agree with HaloFour, I don't know what the deal is with this recent trend of this issues section being bombarded by people who think this is Perl, but this isn't Perl, it's C#, a language with a philosophy of writing code that's purposefully mildly-verbose for the sake of readability and clarity.
Also, recommending new keywords is the last thing you should do. The team hates new keywords and tries to re-purpose them where it seems reasonable.

[DavidArno]

I'm completely confused as to how this proposal works for your last example:

int q = Foo("Test", x, 5, 2, 12, 555, returns x);

Is q assigned the value of x, or the return value from Foo?

[TheUnlocked]

Whatever x is after calling the function.

[DavidArno]

@TheUnlocked,

And what does x contain after calling the function? Let's try another example:

int One() => 1;

var x = 2;
var y = One(return x);

After the last line is called, what would the value of x and y be?

[TheUnlocked]

That would set both x and y to 2.

I'm going to concede this proposal as others' arguments are compelling, but I'll leave it open for further discussion.

[Richiban]

Isn't it a lot better to have an actual method chaining syntax? Although, now that I think about it, I think that's been turned down in the past. Examples might have been:

obj.Foo()
   ..Bar()
   ..Baz();