Alternate Constructor Syntax

[TonyValenti]

I had an idea last night that I wanted to toss out there. This is related to some of the discussion I've seen about records.

Today, I can have a class like this:

public class Foo {
  public string Name {get; set;}
  public int Age {get; set; }

  public Foo(){

  }

  public foo(string name, int age){
    this.Name = name;
    this.Age = age;
  }
}

There are four main ways that the type may be constructed:

var A = new Foo();
var B = new Foo("John", 21);
var C = new Foo(name: "John", age: 21);
var D = new Foo(){Name = "John", Age = 21};
var E = new Foo {Name = "John", Age = 21};

Currently E means "Make a new Foo using the default constructor. Then set some properties".

What if the meaning of E were to be changed to:
Find a constructor such that all parameters are satisfied by the { } arguments and any leftover arguments map to publicly settable properties.

[HaloFour]

Constructor parameters and properties have different naming conventions, and the team had already decided to not try to map properties to constructors based on a case insensitive or other transformation of the names.

[Unknown6656]

What if the meaning of E were to be changed to:
Find a constructor such that all parameters are satisfied by the { } arguments and any leftover arguments map to publicly settable properties.

Then this would be a breaking change and therefore never be accepted as a proposal.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

What if the meaning of E were to be changed to:

We will not change the meaning of code without staggering benefit. The risk of breaks is just not worth it.