Non abstract empty bodyed constructors?

[Shadowblitz16]

Can we get bodyless constructors for non abstract classes for situations where we just need to pass something to base()?

public class Createable<T>(Func<T> Create)
{
     protected T Value => Create();
}

public class HashCode : Createable<int>
{
   public HashCode(string hashCode) : base(() =>
   {
       return hasCode.GetHashCode()
   });
}

it would simply act like this...

public class HashCode : Createable<int>
{
   public HashCode(string hashCode) : base(() =>
   {
       return hasCode.GetHashCode()
   }) { }
}

Note these are just example classes, I am actually using this pattern for Textures

[KennethHoff]

Primary constructors?

public class HashCode(string hashCode) : Createable<int>(() =>
   {
       return hasCode.GetHashCode()
   });

Granted, you now could theoretically have access to that hashCode for the lifetime of the object ( If you access it, that is), so it's not ideal in that sense, but it's much less code than even your suggestion.

---

I agree with the general idea though, I think everywhere you have to add some random character(s) for seemingly no reason they should be optional.

[Shadowblitz16]

Well this works unless I need to define methods or alternet constructors then all of a sudden it's this again..

public class HashCode(string hashCode) : Createable<int>(() =>
   {
       return hasCode.GetHashCode()
   })
{

}