Proposal: Operators as method groups.

[orthoxerox]

It would be quite convenient if standalone operators were treated as method groups. Instead of xs.Aggregate((x1, x2) => x1 + x2) you would write xs.Aggregate(+). If that's potentially syntactically ambiguous, the operator symbol could be wrapped in parentheses or prefixed with @ or another symbol.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

I think being able to say "Type.new" to be able to reference a constructor as a method group would also be nice.

[YaakovDavis]

@CyrusNajmabadi
What about Type.ctor? It's more descriptive IMO.

What about argumented ctors? Possible syntax:
Foo.ctor<int, string>

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Type.ctor is already a legal expression. Type.new is not. :)

What about argumented ctors

We don't have any special syntax to pick a particular overload of a method group. So i don't htink we'd have anything for constructors.

[alrz]

Both new and operators are also mentioned in #84.

[Pzixel]

Is it possible to make operators to being working with null propagation (as method calls, for example), e..g:

    private int Test(int? value) => value?.+(5) ?? 0;

which is the equivalent of:

    private int Test(int? value) => value?.Add(5) ?? 0;

[Joe4evr]

Operators already work on Nullable value types, last I read.

[Pzixel]

You're right. Then it's just

private int Test(int? value) => (value + 5) ?? 0;

However, it's a compiler magic. It wont work for the custom code

private int Test(MyClass value) => (value + 5) ?? 0;

class MyClass
{
	public int Value { get; }
	
	public MyClass(int value) => Value = value;
	
	public static MyClass operator +(MyClass a, int value) => new MyClass(a.Value + value);
}