Auto Implemented Properties with Actions

[hbraasch]

This is probably not a new suggestion, but other than just allowing
e.g. bool IsDirty {get; set;} = false;

Please consider allowing us to add code to them without losing the advantage of anonymous backing fields...
e.g. bool IsDirty {get; set (value) => { MyMethod(value)};} = false;

We can now trigger events if properties change, without having to code with backing fields. This cleans up

[jnm2]

I'd much rather see what has been suggested already (#140), the field keyword:

bool IsDirty { get; set => field = MyMethod(value); } = false;

[hbraasch]

Should be fine, although one loses this in-line capability e.g.:
bool IsDirty { get; set => field = var a= DoThisFirst(); Final(value, a, b); } = false;
But I guess all this will have to fit inside MyMethod(). It's OK

[alrz]

That's quite useful, but when you have a readonly property my bet is on property-scoped fields,

object Foo { object field; get => field ??= Compute(); }

[hbraasch]

OK, I now realized I missed the meaning of the <> keyword. It represents the <>. Thanks for making that clear.

If the implementation can also allow multiple in-line statements , that would satisfy my requirement. I simply want to trigger actions when <>ing without having to code the complete property. Maybe a better example based on the <> keyword approach would be:
object Foo { get => field ??= Compute(); set => {field = value; FireCustomAction(value);} } = false;

[jnm2]

@hbraasch

```c#
// Syntax-highlighted block
object Foo { get => field ??= Compute(); set => {field = value; FireCustomAction(value);} } = false;
```

Gives

// Syntax-highlighted block
object Foo { get => field ??= Compute(); set => {field = value; FireCustomAction(value);} } = false;

[jnm2]

I do really want to see #140. It'll cover so many of the motivations in these asks.

[jnm2]

Using a backing field without naming it was considered in https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2020/LDM-2020-04-01.md