try only block

[sellep]

Sometimes I just want to 'try' something without being interested in exception handling

try
{
    // something I want todo
}
catch
{

}

Which could be shorten to

try
{
    // something I want todo, all exceptions are catched but not handled
}

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Since you can already write this as catch {}, this seems like a non-starter proposal.

1. This is saving almost nothing (just 3 tokens).
2. This sort of behavior is exceedingly rare.
3. This sort of behavior is discouraged as swallowing exceptions is considered a very bad practice.

I cannot envision a world where the language would put in the effort to support something that would be near universally panned as a bad idea.

[whoisj]

I think M# had something like try [statement] and it an exception was throw the app would fail-fast. We could go that route 😏

[sellep]

Consider a public API, which has one or more events:

public class Api
{
    public event EventHandler Change;

    public void DoSomething() => RaiseChange();

    private void RaiseChange()
    {
        try { Change?.Invoke(this, new EventArgs()); } catch { }
    }
}

When a consumer of this API is not handling possible exceptions, they will break through the API:

public class Program
{

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Api api = new Api();
        api.Change += (s, e) => throw new NotImplementedException();
        api.DoSomething();
    }
}

Why should the API take care of any of such exceptions?
I wouldn't even log them, since absolutely not the API's responsibility

Actually this was my intention

[HaloFour]

Consider a public API, which has one or more events:

You should let them bubble up. Ignoring them is certainly not the right thing to do.