[SirNoslyw]

Hey  🤩

Umm, I was coding and then lambda expressions comes up in my mind.

Which syntax is more clearer for you (in this situation)?

(with lambda expression):

private static MyClass MyMethod (object obj) => obj;
__________

(without lambda expression):

private static MyClass MyMethod(object obj)
{
      return obj;
}

Normally I just use lambda expressions for delegates.

[BahNahNah]

First one.
Though there are only a few situations where this would even come up (like overriding/implementing interface) because a property is usually more suited (assuming there are no parameters).
And then, i would still use lambda

Code

public static MyClass MyProperty => [value];

[0xDEAD10CC]

It depends on the size, captures you might want, and re-use of the code that your lambda encapsulates... The context here is irrelevant because it looks dumbed down for the purpose of your explanation, so nobody here is going to be able to provide you with a good answer.

[BahNahNah]

It depends on the size, captures you might want, and re-use of the code that your lambda encapsulates... The context here is irrelevant because it looks dumbed down for the purpose of your explanation, so nobody here is going to be able to provide you with a good answer.

I assume the context is a function with one instruction/line?

[Ninja]

First is of course 'cleaner' but if you ever have to revise it to >1 line you must revert to the original syntax. I tend to use this for short overrides (operators, ToString, etc.), delegates and LINQ.

Why is everyone saying that? I find the second one cleaner. Then again, I hardly ever use the first.

[0xDEAD10CC]

If you find yourself shortening code down to LINQ just so that you can use the first, then you're probably just not thinking about readability. Depending too, properties might be a better choice. The example above doesn't really show much.

[mrq5bok]

I use the second one since it is cleaner and more understandable to use.

[Crake]

The former definitely is cleaner.
EDIT: Removed me being an idiot.

[byte[]]

If you find yourself shortening code down to LINQ just so that you can use the first, then you're probably just not thinking about readability. Depending too, properties might be a better choice. The example above doesn't really show much.

I agree, it's a broad example.