Consider allowing Method definitions with a void return type, particularly Constructors, without a body by ending them with a semicolon

[egvijayanand]

Consider allowing Method definitions with a void return type, particularly Constructors, without a body by ending them with a semicolon.

With the introduction of Records and Primary Constructors, it is now easy to define a type in a single line ending with a semicolon.

record Foo(int X, int Y); // A valid C# type

But sometimes, there is a need to define additional constructors either to invoke a constructor initializer or pass the parameter values to the base constructor without any additional work involved.

However, these types of methods require a pair of curly braces to be recognized as a method, rather than ending with a semicolon which would otherwise be considered a valid definition.

class Foo : Point
{
    // Existing - IMO, the pair of curly braces is not required rather it can end with a semicolon.
    public Foo() {}
    public Foo(int x, int y) : base(x, y) {} // Assume there is a parameterized constructor in the Point base class
    // Proposed
    public Foo();
    public Foo(int x, int y) : base(x, y);
}

[egvijayanand]

The presence of an access modifier would qualify it as a method definition avoiding any ambiguity.

[egvijayanand]

Partial methods already support this syntax and extend it to Constructors as well under the assumption that the method body for the latter is optional.

[koszeggy]

#5513, #4309

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Closing as dupe